I always wanted to work in a deli, just so a woman would come in and ask me to give her some tongue. Then I could tell her, "sorry, I don't get off until 5:00!" Then she'd tell me "I don't get off at all, that's why I'm looking to buy some tongue!"
Thank you very much; I'm here all week. Try the veal.
I'm a huge fan of HSR, and would love to see it debut in the US (by international standards, Acela is strictly mid-speed). But a few things need to be noted:
1) You refer to our current rail network is 'aging.' That's putting it mildly. I read once that, the only reason that Amtrak can run Acela on the northeast corridor (NEC) is that the Pennsylvania Railroad did a major system upgrade... in the 1930s. On one hand, that tells you what a good job the PRR did; it's not for nothing that they were referred to as 'the World's Standard Railroad.' On the other hand, it also illustrates how aged- not aging, but already aged- our rail network is.
2) Even at the height of the US rail industry, passengers were always a loss-leader for freight. I was told by an old railman that the PRR actually hired people to burn down passenger stations so that the railroad could justify ending passenger service on that line. The only reason that major railroads carried passengers was that the Federal Railroad Administration required them to, as part of their license to carry freight (the real money maker).
In short, if true HSR's ever going to make an appearance in the US, it will likely be in the context of passenger trains running on upgraded freight lines. Now, if we upgrade the freight lines, that can have a huge impact on the US. Rail moves freight much faster, and at a far lower cost, than moving it via truck, and, right now, there are far too many choke points on the US rail network. Upgrade the rail network to handle more freight more efficiently, and you may just get HSR for passengers as a side benefit.
It always strikes me that, just as the SAT is primarily a good test of how well you will take the SAT, the IQ test is primarily a test of how well you do on the IQ test. In other words, don't read too much into it.
I always disliked the idea of what I term 'Big I' Intelligence; the notion that a single measurement can capture an individual's total mental capacity. I'm much more fond of Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences). To broadly summarize, the idea is that a person may be better in one thing than another; a genius in math, for instance, but mediocre at writing. Or a physical genius- Michael Jordan, for instance- but not terribly good at science. And so forth.
To apply it to TFA, the average woman's particular set of intelligences are likely to be different from those of the average man. This is not meant as an insult, and there are surely exceptions (my Aunt Sharon is as brilliant a science + math teacher as I've ever known). As a society, we tend to place more value on those intelligences which tend to be more sterotypically male, while de-emphasizing those which are sterotypically female.
My official title is IT Support. After I accepted the job, I promptly took one card, added 'and Time Lord' to it, and stuck it on my door. If people choose to call me their IT Time Lord, I won't complain. Most important, though, is that they continue to call me employed. As long as they call me that, I'll accept Software Simian, Tech Turtle, Computer Crank, or any other term you choose.
As I watched the Google Chrome OS rollout, it occurred to me that, when it comes down to it, Chrome isn't so much a full OS as it is a program loader, a la DOS. As the presenter explained, most of what an OS does Chrome *won't* do- no scheduler, no other apps, barely a file system, etc. What it will do is load a Web browser, and then get out of the way. That strikes me as rather similar to the experience I had back in the day using SLIPNot to simulate a graphical browser over a SLIP connection.
This isn't a criticism; far from it. It may just be that precisely what netbooks need is a program loader to start a Web browser + then get out of the way, rather than a full-fledged OS to tax their limited- by design- resources.
Now, if I could just find a way to load SLIPNot on my Eee...
I use Crunchbang (aka #!) on my Eee, both for its performance + for its name being a perfect description of my, shall we say, checkered relationship w/technology.
Agreed, that is a pity. I bought a refurbed Eee 900 a few months back specifically b/c of its being a linux box. Now, I get the pure geek fun of being able to test various distros via ISOs + UNetBootIn, w/no licensing issues whatsoever.
I am curious, though, to see how much Asus embraces Google Chrome OS; it seems as if they may do so enthusiastically. Chrome OS, if it's all it's cut out to be, would be perfect for an Eee, making it effectively into a mobile thin client. Don't forget that Chrome OS is basically linux w/a Google clown suit.
The main problem is that, for a system to be sure, at least one part of it has to be strict. Since Windows is fairly permissive, security requires a sysadmin to be something of a hardass- a position which is not often appreciated by users. At my office, for instance, people constantly complain that our sysadmin doesn't allow them to install *anything* on their PCs, assuming that they even have full PCs (about 1/2 of them are Citrix thin clients). On the other hand, as I explain to them, I've worked in IT for a long time, + I've never seen a network as securely-run as ours; much of this is due to our sysadmin's being a hardass. If, on the other hand, people are given the freedom to install their own s/w, they often wind up installing trojans and so forth.
The deregulation of the US electric industry began w/the Energy Policy Act of 1992, although, as Wikipedia notes, "It began in earnest only from 1996 onwards when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued orders that required utilities to provide transmission services "on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis."
Now that power utilities are free to be profit-generating enterprises, there's less incentive for them to invest in the redundancies which make cascading failures possible. In the past, when utilities were heavily-regulated non-profits, people complained that their systems tended to be "gold-plated," due to so much potential profit being re-invested in the systems. But, as the northeast blackout of a few years back demonstrates, today the same money which would have gone to improving the infrastructure now goes to shareholders + private owners.
It's a no-win situation, unless you happen to be an owner, in which case you can probably afford your own private generator when the system you own fails.
Both 'unschooling' and home schooling are, at their hearts, reactions to a central problem w/the dominant educational problem of today. As I was told by a Rabbi, the main thing which would help the Philadelphia School District would be to roll back the calendar 50 or so years. Or, to put it another way, the dominant model of education today is predicated on producing two classes of kids: college-bound, + factory workers. The latter are almost unneeded today, and they typically outnumber the former, so you wind up w/schools that produce kids w/no viable means of support.
Vocational-technical education, ironically enough, could be incredibly useful as a model today, even as more and more vo-tech schools are being closed or converted into comprehensive high schools. While there is little use for 1950s-style factory workers today, and only a limited need for professionals, there will *always* be a need for plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc. None of these jobs requires a college education, all pay well, and all are extremely difficult to offshore. An upgraded model of vo-tech education could certainly include technical fields as well- again, jobs for the 21st century economy, not the 1950s one.
You are making an assumption: namely, that no new technology would be involved in the creation of these 'space taxis.' In other words, you appear to be assuming that a space taxi would be nothing more than a rebranded, perhaps smaller, Space Shuttle.
But perhaps a space taxi could resemble one which launches from a tanker flying at high altitude. Perhaps it could involve ramjets rather than liquid or solid fuel rockets. Or, perhaps more likely, it could involve an entirely new technology.
The idea of developing new technology is also, in and of itself, a major benefit of the space program, in that developing new technology will likely require us to also educate a new generation of engineers. It's no co-incidence that Pres. Kennedy's challenge to land a man on the moon + return him safely to earth also yielded a bumper crop of enthusiastic young engineers. This group of engineers is now reaching retirement age, and if the US is to retain its economic position, it needs to replace these engineers w/a new generation.
Full disclosure: I'm a computer engineer, from a family of engineers. I also went to Space Camp. Twice.
It's worth nothing that, while few people are directly involved w/the space program, the space program has historically had indirect benefits which have benefited society. To list a few (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off):
Health and Medicine Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) (2005) Infrared Ear Thermometers (1991) DeBakey's Ventricular Assist Device (VAD) (2002) Artificial Limbs (2005)
Transportation Aircraft Anti-Icing Systems (2007) Highway Safety Grooving (1985) Improved Radial Tires (1976) Chemical Detection (2007)
Public Safety Video Enhancing and Analysis Systems (2001) Land Mine Removal (2000) Fire-Resistant Reinforcement (2006) Firefighting Equipment (1976 onwards)
Please bear in mind that I say the following as a major linux fan. I have two homebuilt linux computers at home- one a server running Mandriva, the other a workstation running Kubuntu- and a linux netbook as well.
Unfortunately, these predictions of Windows' imminent death on the desktop at the hands of ChromeOS remind me of the predictions that 'next year' will be the year of linux on the desktop. Desktop linux, whatever its merits, is most likely doomed to be the monorail of computing. The monorail, you may recall, has been described as the transit system of the future; always has been, always will be. I suspect that the same could be said of linux: it's the desktop OS of the future; always has been, always will be.
At the same time, nobody in the linux world to this point has had anywhere near the market penetration of the Google folks, so things may be different this time. But past is precedent, and, in the past, linux hasn't made it on the desktop.
Seconded strongly; anything which cannot be tested in a rigorous fashion is, by its very definition, not science.
Basic scientific method, for those who are not familiar w/it, is as follows (from Wikipedia):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
Repeat, until you acquire a body of data; that data can then be used to state a theory. ID- again, by its very definition- skips the 2nd-4th steps entirely, in that it says you *can't* test certain things. It is, therefore, actually anti-scientific at its core.
Religious, definitely, and there's certainly a place for religious study. But that place is *not* the science classroom.
When comparing dogs to cats in terms of intelligence, their relationship to humans, or really anything, it's important to consider the difference between pack animals and social animals. Both humans and dogs are pack animals- we instinctively group together, tend to organize around alpha males and/or females, and instinctively value praise from said alphas. So, dogs *desperately* want their humans- who they see as alphas- to love them. More to the point, the fact that humans + dogs are each pack animals no doubt contributes to the fact that the history of humans + dogs together goes back, quite literally, to the stone age, as we have discovered cave paintings of humans w/dogs.
Cats, on the other hand, are social creatures. They will, in certain circumstances, show rudimentary pack organization (you can see this w/barn cats or feral street cats). But, since they're not pack animals, they really have no instinctive drive to either spend time w/humans or to please them. More to the point, where humans + dogs together goes back to pre-history, it is fairly clear that the first civilization to domesticate cats were the Egyptians, within recorded history. They were the first western civilization to hoard grain, and when you hoard grain, you attract vermin. The Egyptians began domesticating cats to eat the vermin. The way I put it is that our relationship w/cats is really more of a business relationship than anything else. And I say this as a former cat + dog owner.
How does this relate to so-called intelligence in dogs? It's fairly simple: since dogs are *desperate* to have their humans express praise for them, they'll learn fairly simple behaviors fairly quickly, since even a pat on the head is a reward. But we shouldn't make the leap from assuming that learned behavior clearly indicates intelligence; even the most primitive animals will act according to the principles of operative conditioning.
The Milky Way Galaxy is one *huge* place. According to a Wikipedia entry, it's roughly 39 million million cubic light years in size. That's *huge.* Considering how huge it is, even if there were literally hundreds of intelligent civilizations out there, each randomly sending out sublight probes into deep space, the chances that we would encounter any single one of them is vanishingly small, simply due to the sizes involved.
As for radio transmissions, if we want to assume that every civilization began to produce radio transmissions at roughly the same time- a huge assumption, I know- then it could well take up to a hundred thousand years for one of those transmissions to be picked up by an Earth-bound radio telescope. And, even that's assuming that the signal wouldn't be too faint to detect.
If we did happen to stumble upon ETs, it's likely to not only be blind luck, but ridiculously improbable at that. Not impossible, mind you, but ridiculously improbable.
... shame on you; fool me umpteen times, shame on me.
In all seriousness, I suspect Win 7 will find its way onto desktops by attrition; as older machines are replaced, most of the replacement will come pre-loaded w/Win 7, as OEMs are 'encouraged' by MS to load it rather than XP, and IT departments decide it's better to give the newer OS a shot than to spend man-hours reimaging each new PC w/XP.
Will Win 7 run as well on old hardware as XP? Of course not, but XP didn't run on circa-1998 h/w as Win 98 did either. Combine Win 7- or even (ptooey) Vista- w/brand spanking new h/w, + its performance shortcomings will seem much less glaring.
As for linux- and I say this as a *major* linux fan, who runs it on a home server + workstation (both homebrewed)- it's sort of like the monorail: it's the desktop OS of the future; always has been, always will be.
MS has reason to *not* support ODF, given its past pushing of OOXML, etc. At the very least, if MS *does* support ODF, one should expect it to do so in a very unenthusiastic mannter.
Slashdot Mirror
I always wanted to work in a deli, just so a woman would come in and ask me to give her some tongue. Then I could tell her, "sorry, I don't get off until 5:00!" Then she'd tell me "I don't get off at all, that's why I'm looking to buy some tongue!"
Thank you very much; I'm here all week. Try the veal.
I'm a huge fan of HSR, and would love to see it debut in the US (by international standards, Acela is strictly mid-speed). But a few things need to be noted:
1) You refer to our current rail network is 'aging.' That's putting it mildly. I read once that, the only reason that Amtrak can run Acela on the northeast corridor (NEC) is that the Pennsylvania Railroad did a major system upgrade... in the 1930s. On one hand, that tells you what a good job the PRR did; it's not for nothing that they were referred to as 'the World's Standard Railroad.' On the other hand, it also illustrates how aged- not aging, but already aged- our rail network is.
2) Even at the height of the US rail industry, passengers were always a loss-leader for freight. I was told by an old railman that the PRR actually hired people to burn down passenger stations so that the railroad could justify ending passenger service on that line. The only reason that major railroads carried passengers was that the Federal Railroad Administration required them to, as part of their license to carry freight (the real money maker).
In short, if true HSR's ever going to make an appearance in the US, it will likely be in the context of passenger trains running on upgraded freight lines. Now, if we upgrade the freight lines, that can have a huge impact on the US. Rail moves freight much faster, and at a far lower cost, than moving it via truck, and, right now, there are far too many choke points on the US rail network. Upgrade the rail network to handle more freight more efficiently, and you may just get HSR for passengers as a side benefit.
It always strikes me that, just as the SAT is primarily a good test of how well you will take the SAT, the IQ test is primarily a test of how well you do on the IQ test. In other words, don't read too much into it.
I always disliked the idea of what I term 'Big I' Intelligence; the notion that a single measurement can capture an individual's total mental capacity. I'm much more fond of Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences). To broadly summarize, the idea is that a person may be better in one thing than another; a genius in math, for instance, but mediocre at writing. Or a physical genius- Michael Jordan, for instance- but not terribly good at science. And so forth.
To apply it to TFA, the average woman's particular set of intelligences are likely to be different from those of the average man. This is not meant as an insult, and there are surely exceptions (my Aunt Sharon is as brilliant a science + math teacher as I've ever known). As a society, we tend to place more value on those intelligences which tend to be more sterotypically male, while de-emphasizing those which are sterotypically female.
As usual, YMMVW.
My official title is IT Support. After I accepted the job, I promptly took one card, added 'and Time Lord' to it, and stuck it on my door. If people choose to call me their IT Time Lord, I won't complain. Most important, though, is that they continue to call me employed. As long as they call me that, I'll accept Software Simian, Tech Turtle, Computer Crank, or any other term you choose.
As I watched the Google Chrome OS rollout, it occurred to me that, when it comes down to it, Chrome isn't so much a full OS as it is a program loader, a la DOS. As the presenter explained, most of what an OS does Chrome *won't* do- no scheduler, no other apps, barely a file system, etc. What it will do is load a Web browser, and then get out of the way. That strikes me as rather similar to the experience I had back in the day using SLIPNot to simulate a graphical browser over a SLIP connection.
This isn't a criticism; far from it. It may just be that precisely what netbooks need is a program loader to start a Web browser + then get out of the way, rather than a full-fledged OS to tax their limited- by design- resources.
Now, if I could just find a way to load SLIPNot on my Eee...
I, for one, welcome our cybernetic feline overlords.
I use Crunchbang (aka #!) on my Eee, both for its performance + for its name being a perfect description of my, shall we say, checkered relationship w/technology.
Agreed, that is a pity. I bought a refurbed Eee 900 a few months back specifically b/c of its being a linux box. Now, I get the pure geek fun of being able to test various distros via ISOs + UNetBootIn, w/no licensing issues whatsoever.
I am curious, though, to see how much Asus embraces Google Chrome OS; it seems as if they may do so enthusiastically. Chrome OS, if it's all it's cut out to be, would be perfect for an Eee, making it effectively into a mobile thin client. Don't forget that Chrome OS is basically linux w/a Google clown suit.
The main problem is that, for a system to be sure, at least one part of it has to be strict. Since Windows is fairly permissive, security requires a sysadmin to be something of a hardass- a position which is not often appreciated by users. At my office, for instance, people constantly complain that our sysadmin doesn't allow them to install *anything* on their PCs, assuming that they even have full PCs (about 1/2 of them are Citrix thin clients). On the other hand, as I explain to them, I've worked in IT for a long time, + I've never seen a network as securely-run as ours; much of this is due to our sysadmin's being a hardass. If, on the other hand, people are given the freedom to install their own s/w, they often wind up installing trojans and so forth.
Wow, Honda's answer to the Segway. Because, obviously, the original Segway was such a runaway success.
The deregulation of the US electric industry began w/the Energy Policy Act of 1992, although, as Wikipedia notes, "It began in earnest only from 1996 onwards when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued orders that required utilities to provide transmission services "on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States#Deregulation_and_competition
Now that power utilities are free to be profit-generating enterprises, there's less incentive for them to invest in the redundancies which make cascading failures possible. In the past, when utilities were heavily-regulated non-profits, people complained that their systems tended to be "gold-plated," due to so much potential profit being re-invested in the systems. But, as the northeast blackout of a few years back demonstrates, today the same money which would have gone to improving the infrastructure now goes to shareholders + private owners.
It's a no-win situation, unless you happen to be an owner, in which case you can probably afford your own private generator when the system you own fails.
Both 'unschooling' and home schooling are, at their hearts, reactions to a central problem w/the dominant educational problem of today. As I was told by a Rabbi, the main thing which would help the Philadelphia School District would be to roll back the calendar 50 or so years. Or, to put it another way, the dominant model of education today is predicated on producing two classes of kids: college-bound, + factory workers. The latter are almost unneeded today, and they typically outnumber the former, so you wind up w/schools that produce kids w/no viable means of support.
Vocational-technical education, ironically enough, could be incredibly useful as a model today, even as more and more vo-tech schools are being closed or converted into comprehensive high schools. While there is little use for 1950s-style factory workers today, and only a limited need for professionals, there will *always* be a need for plumbers, carpenters, electricians, etc. None of these jobs requires a college education, all pay well, and all are extremely difficult to offshore. An upgraded model of vo-tech education could certainly include technical fields as well- again, jobs for the 21st century economy, not the 1950s one.
Oh, it's all well and good that Harwell has historic significance as the UK's oldest computer. What people want to know is: does it run Windows?
You are making an assumption: namely, that no new technology would be involved in the creation of these 'space taxis.' In other words, you appear to be assuming that a space taxi would be nothing more than a rebranded, perhaps smaller, Space Shuttle.
But perhaps a space taxi could resemble one which launches from a tanker flying at high altitude. Perhaps it could involve ramjets rather than liquid or solid fuel rockets. Or, perhaps more likely, it could involve an entirely new technology.
The idea of developing new technology is also, in and of itself, a major benefit of the space program, in that developing new technology will likely require us to also educate a new generation of engineers. It's no co-incidence that Pres. Kennedy's challenge to land a man on the moon + return him safely to earth also yielded a bumper crop of enthusiastic young engineers. This group of engineers is now reaching retirement age, and if the US is to retain its economic position, it needs to replace these engineers w/a new generation.
Full disclosure: I'm a computer engineer, from a family of engineers. I also went to Space Camp. Twice.
It's worth nothing that, while few people are directly involved w/the space program, the space program has historically had indirect benefits which have benefited society. To list a few (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off):
Health and Medicine
Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) (2005)
Infrared Ear Thermometers (1991)
DeBakey's Ventricular Assist Device (VAD) (2002)
Artificial Limbs (2005)
Transportation
Aircraft Anti-Icing Systems (2007)
Highway Safety Grooving (1985)
Improved Radial Tires (1976)
Chemical Detection (2007)
Public Safety
Video Enhancing and Analysis Systems (2001)
Land Mine Removal (2000)
Fire-Resistant Reinforcement (2006)
Firefighting Equipment (1976 onwards)
Consumer, Home, and Recreation
Temper Foam (1976-2005)
Enriched Baby Food (1996, 2008)
Portable Cordless Vacuums (1981)
Freeze Drying Technology (1976, 1994)
Environmental and Agricultural Resources
Water Purification (1995, 2006)
Solar Energy (2005)
Pollution Remediation (1994, 2006)
Computer Technology
Better Virtual Software (2005)
Structural Analysis (1976-1998)
Internet-Connected Ovens (2005)
Industrial Productivity
Powdered Lubricants (2005)
Improved Mine Safety (1978-2008)
Food Safety Systems (1991)
Please bear in mind that I say the following as a major linux fan. I have two homebuilt linux computers at home- one a server running Mandriva, the other a workstation running Kubuntu- and a linux netbook as well.
Unfortunately, these predictions of Windows' imminent death on the desktop at the hands of ChromeOS remind me of the predictions that 'next year' will be the year of linux on the desktop. Desktop linux, whatever its merits, is most likely doomed to be the monorail of computing. The monorail, you may recall, has been described as the transit system of the future; always has been, always will be. I suspect that the same could be said of linux: it's the desktop OS of the future; always has been, always will be.
At the same time, nobody in the linux world to this point has had anywhere near the market penetration of the Google folks, so things may be different this time. But past is precedent, and, in the past, linux hasn't made it on the desktop.
Seconded strongly; anything which cannot be tested in a rigorous fashion is, by its very definition, not science.
Basic scientific method, for those who are not familiar w/it, is as follows (from Wikipedia):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
Repeat, until you acquire a body of data; that data can then be used to state a theory. ID- again, by its very definition- skips the 2nd-4th steps entirely, in that it says you *can't* test certain things. It is, therefore, actually anti-scientific at its core.
Religious, definitely, and there's certainly a place for religious study. But that place is *not* the science classroom.
When comparing dogs to cats in terms of intelligence, their relationship to humans, or really anything, it's important to consider the difference between pack animals and social animals. Both humans and dogs are pack animals- we instinctively group together, tend to organize around alpha males and/or females, and instinctively value praise from said alphas. So, dogs *desperately* want their humans- who they see as alphas- to love them. More to the point, the fact that humans + dogs are each pack animals no doubt contributes to the fact that the history of humans + dogs together goes back, quite literally, to the stone age, as we have discovered cave paintings of humans w/dogs.
Cats, on the other hand, are social creatures. They will, in certain circumstances, show rudimentary pack organization (you can see this w/barn cats or feral street cats). But, since they're not pack animals, they really have no instinctive drive to either spend time w/humans or to please them. More to the point, where humans + dogs together goes back to pre-history, it is fairly clear that the first civilization to domesticate cats were the Egyptians, within recorded history. They were the first western civilization to hoard grain, and when you hoard grain, you attract vermin. The Egyptians began domesticating cats to eat the vermin. The way I put it is that our relationship w/cats is really more of a business relationship than anything else. And I say this as a former cat + dog owner.
How does this relate to so-called intelligence in dogs? It's fairly simple: since dogs are *desperate* to have their humans express praise for them, they'll learn fairly simple behaviors fairly quickly, since even a pat on the head is a reward. But we shouldn't make the leap from assuming that learned behavior clearly indicates intelligence; even the most primitive animals will act according to the principles of operative conditioning.
The Milky Way Galaxy is one *huge* place. According to a Wikipedia entry, it's roughly 39 million million cubic light years in size. That's *huge.* Considering how huge it is, even if there were literally hundreds of intelligent civilizations out there, each randomly sending out sublight probes into deep space, the chances that we would encounter any single one of them is vanishingly small, simply due to the sizes involved.
As for radio transmissions, if we want to assume that every civilization began to produce radio transmissions at roughly the same time- a huge assumption, I know- then it could well take up to a hundred thousand years for one of those transmissions to be picked up by an Earth-bound radio telescope. And, even that's assuming that the signal wouldn't be too faint to detect.
If we did happen to stumble upon ETs, it's likely to not only be blind luck, but ridiculously improbable at that. Not impossible, mind you, but ridiculously improbable.
Space station toilet damaged; investigators have nothing to go on.
So, what you're saying is something like this...
1) Release crappy Vista OS.
2) ?
3) Profit!
Now, I'm not sure about Bill Gates, but Steve Ballmer looks like he could actually be an Underpants Gnome.
I'm sorry- one should never mention Gnome around Ballmer. He tends to throw things.
Frankly, if MS would have added decent USB support to Windows 2k, I would never have switched to XP.
And that is precisely why MS never added decent USB support to W2K.
... shame on you; fool me umpteen times, shame on me.
In all seriousness, I suspect Win 7 will find its way onto desktops by attrition; as older machines are replaced, most of the replacement will come pre-loaded w/Win 7, as OEMs are 'encouraged' by MS to load it rather than XP, and IT departments decide it's better to give the newer OS a shot than to spend man-hours reimaging each new PC w/XP.
Will Win 7 run as well on old hardware as XP? Of course not, but XP didn't run on circa-1998 h/w as Win 98 did either. Combine Win 7- or even (ptooey) Vista- w/brand spanking new h/w, + its performance shortcomings will seem much less glaring.
As for linux- and I say this as a *major* linux fan, who runs it on a home server + workstation (both homebrewed)- it's sort of like the monorail: it's the desktop OS of the future; always has been, always will be.
MS has reason to *not* support ODF, given its past pushing of OOXML, etc. At the very least, if MS *does* support ODF, one should expect it to do so in a very unenthusiastic mannter.