I think you should seek somebody that complements your skills and desires. While I deal with computers a great deal, I do have interests in other areas like audio/visual media, writing and health/fitness. If you marry a girl that is just as passionate about computers as you are, that will basically be your entire life. Your marriage will eventually become stale and your life relatively boring.
If instead, you marry somebody that respects your work/hobbies but still has strong interests in other areas, you're more apt to broaden your horizons a little, try new things and generally have a more productive and exciting marriage.
Granted, I'm doing some serious generalizing here, but that's my chief complaint about geek girls.
Now, if I were different, if I didn't have such a strong background and interest in computers and networking, a geek girl might be exactly what I'd need.
Only use -9 as a last resort. The -9 flag cannot be trapped by the process, which means it can't clean up after itself.
A simple "kill" will suffice (I believe it sends a TERM(inate) signal by default, which is friendly), and that's what's used on my system to drop the connection. It's worked flawlessly under 5.0 and 5.2 with 2.2.1. Pppd catches the TERM signal and shuts down the connection in a friendly fashion.
Someone else mentioned "ifdown ppp0". Perhaps that's the "correct" way of doing it; I don't know.
Your examples are unrealistic for the majority of the population. Sure, it would be nice to know how to do the things you're describing, but you should not require everyone in the world to know how to do this in order to survive. (Most people are aware that there are circuit breakers in their homes. I've never met somebody that didn't know to check that.)
People KNOW that they can learn how to do the things that they pay others to do (repairmen, for example), but they CHOOSE NOT TO. The likelyhood that equipment is going to break down for them is low enough that they can afford to pay someone else (assuming they don't have a friend) to fix it.
People should not be required to learn how to repair and/or re-program the tools they use every day. The tools should be designed in such a way as to make them reliable and easy to use for its target consumer.
You're coming dangerously close to total arrogance here by stating the rest of society are idiots because they don't know the details about your specialization.
Chefs do not need to know the physics behind how a microwave oven works in order to prepare meals. If they were required to learn the scientific/physics basis behind how everything in their life worked, they would have no time left over to do what they're trying to do.
It's all about simple economics and marketing. If you invent something and bring it to market in two different ways, one with a complex/powerful interface requiring the operator to know its details, and one with a simple/efficient interface that required little knowledge of the internals, the latter would sell to the general public while the former would sell to those that were willing to learn (or already understood) the internals of the invention.
People should not be *forced* to spend hours (or weeks or months) effectively learning someone else's specialization (that's what it is, a specialization) in order to do relatively simple tasks.
Look at how many people *want* their lives to be known. I have a webcam in my living room, up essentially 24 hours a day. I have an online journal on my web page that pretty much outlines everything else a viewer might have missed.
Do I feel having dozens if not hundreds of strangers at any given time peering into my home is an invasion of my privacy? Not really. For the most part, I don't do anything differently. I've given up a bad habit or two as a result.
Naturally, I don't have one of these things in my bedroom or bathroom, but I doubt leaving your door unlocked and letting your neighbors stop by whenever they want implies that they can slip into your bedroom or bathroom either.
I do agree a bit with this guy's position. The government can track you down, watch your every move. People rich enough (or sly enough) can do the same thing. Why can't we return the favor?
Information about you is going to be gathered by people no matter what you do about it. If you legislate privacy protections, that's only going to push it into the hands of the unscrupulous. Instead, of you embrace it, and allow it to work both ways, hopefully both sides will grow up a little and the information won't really be as valuable as people once thought.
Though I'm not sure if I like or agree with this just yet, I think this article is very thought-provoking.
The adapter's what causes the problem, but the problem is that the batteries can explode.
I lust, but it's not enough (res too low)
on
50 inch Plasma TVs
·
· Score: 1
You guys aren't going to be sitting right up against one of these things either. (Well, I don't know, maybe you are). I think you're meant to sit back from these a few feet (like TV-watching distance), which makes this resolution perfect (the latter even more so, since it takes advantage of the wide aspect ratio).
Similarly, though not quite as strong, 1.2 GHz is a harmonic for the 2.4 GHz microwaves and can have the same effects. A lot of the cellphone EMF scare has its roots here.
yabber, yabber, yabber. the anonymous pests of slashdot descend on yet another post that was veering dangerously close to the Other Side of the Coin. since you have no intention of discussing the matter without resorting to name-calling and the arrogant belief that your comments are more worthy of attention than someone else's, be quiet and let the rational people talk in peace . . .
The article states that the 2D "mode" makes it behave just like any other monitor. In order to get the 3D effect, you need either a driver or applications designed to interlace the two stereo images in a manner that allows them to be directed at the individual eyes.
The article seems to imply that the light sources would be movable depending on which mode of operation the monitor was in. I don't know how this can be controlled. If it requires some software driver support, someone will need to code some software drivers in order for it to work.
Why does everyone assume that by putting OS X in object Y that OS X automatically control's Y's vital functions?
When the time comes to computerize the interface with an object's critical operations, a suitable OS/application suite will be developed that will be ideal for the situation.
you guys realize that windows has very specific flaws, even if microsoft keeps stuffing your brain with the opposite?
Oh, I agree, 100%. I'm not saying these systems will be *as* stable or problem-free as their Unix counterparts. All I'm saying is that the astronauts certainly have experience configuring Windows systems (like any other moderately educated computer user), and that's what they've been using to date on the ground.
All I was saying was that there are valid reasons for NASA choosing to have the astronauts use Windows for their "personal" computers. The silly claims about them wasting hours upon hours rebooting the machines every other minute and having to reinstall Windows every few weeks are just stupid.
I will think that you MS-guys are learning too.
Hah! Nobody's ever called me an "MS-guy" before. Usually I'm arguing in Linux's/Unix's favor, but I'm afraid for this article I have to step up to Microsoft's defense, simply because the Linux bigots feel they have to come out of the woodwork with every conceivable Windows cliche. It's pathetic. If you have a reasonable, educated argument, FEEL FREE to post it. Some have. But for those that feel they just have to jump on the "Linux r00lZ! WindoZe SuX!!" bandwagon without ANY real knowledge of the circumstances of the situation need to get a life.
time in space is more expensive than per-pound costs. An hour of an astronaut's work is way more expensive than a couple of pounds. Moron.
Ahh.. I thought this was going to be one of the first "real" dialogs, but I see we've resorted to name-calling. *sigh*.. It was going so well, too.
If the single two factors we had to consider was the astronaut's time and the payload mass, I'd be tempted to agree. However, neither you nor I have even a MINIMAL idea of what tasks these astronauts are going to be doing and what exactly they'll be doing with their '95 machines and the NT server aside from what's already been discussed.
Again, these are NASA engineers. You can be brutally certain that they have considered using non-Windows operating systems to do the task, but for some mixture of reasons, they opted instead to use Windows. Why? *I* don't know. *I* didn't make the decisions. It's not me you should be calling a moron. You have absolutely NO idea what factors they're considering. Again, they're not stupid. Give them some credit.
Hell, if you're really that concerned, write NASA and see if you can get more information about their decision.
don't think any other OS has crashed in space, other than Windows, mind you. True, Ariane blew up last year for a software problem..... but, still, is anyone aware of a "software problems in space" site ?
Again, I agree that Windows is not the most stable OS choice, but again, this is not the only factor to consider. You don't have all of the information. Don't be so quick to judge.
Besides, these are NOT CRITICAL MACHINES. A crash or reboot is not going to cause the loss of millions of dollars of astronaut time. I'm not saying that it's NOT going to crash. Let's say that an astronaut's machine requires a reboot once every week (an easy goal for NASA -- my Win98 PC at home, running continuously, used nearly continuously by various people, needs to be rebooted an average of once every two weeks). That's what, a maximum of 3 minutes? 3 minutes/week is nothing. He could easily spend 30 seconds a day brushing his teeth a bit longer.
The guys at NASA are smart, but I'd bet against a nobel prize that there are better solutions than this one.
Why don't you write them and enlighten them? Say, "Hi guys, I know you've been studying this problem for months if not years, and I know you have degrees in all of these types of things, and I know I have but an inkling of knowledge regarding what you're going to be needing these machines to be doing and the environment it's all going to be working in, but really, you're all morons! You could be doing it SO much better if you used Linux!"
Please...
Freedom of speech != license to corrupt
on
CDA II Injunction
·
· Score: 1
This could be taken either way. This implies that the parents who (negligently?) let their child hop on the 'Net and browse porn sites are JUST as much at fault as anybody.
If you shared yards with a neighbor that owned a ferocious, chained-up snarling beast of a dog, what would you do?
You could simply not let your child go in the back yard. That's a pretty simple solution but really leaves the kid stifled as he can't go out and explore the back yard. You could take your child outside only with your supervision, just in case he ended up wandering too close to the Beast. That could work, but would be really inconvenient/boring for you and would really only allow your kid to go out when it fit your schedule. You could erect a fence to separate the yards. That would let your child have fun in the back yard without worrying about what's in your neighbor's yard.
What would you do?
Hopefully you can identify the parallels here with the topic at hand. If not, let me know and I can spell it out for you.
I have my threshold set to -5 and the only comments I've ever seen *deleted* were First Comment posts. I do occasionally see an article scored down to -2, -3, or even -4 so perhaps you should adjust your threshold down a bit further.
It's not "censorship", either, since a lot of people have their thresholds set to -1 or lower by default and they still see them (as can ANYONE if they just adjust their viewing threshold). It's just scoring by the moderators.
Moderators cannot delete comments, by the way. They can only adjust the relative score of posts. If a deletion occurs, it's one of the admins of the site that's doing it.
I agree that Unix tends to be a superior, more efficient and reliable solution over anything provided by NT.
In NT's defense, however, I've really gotta say that with competant, clueful admins, most any Windows machine can be made just as stable as its Unix counterpart.
Most of the problems creep in with unstable drivers or applications or tight memory/system constraints. Most qualified NT admins, though, should be aware of these issues and know how to compensate. If you/your staff is incompetant in this regard, the move to Unix was probably a good thing.
NT/Win95 is probably the best choice here
on
Space Station's LAN
·
· Score: 1
These guys aren't going to be using their 95 machines to locate another workstation connected via PPTP. They're doing your typical e-mail reading, word processing and generic SOHO tasks.
We have a "cluster" of NT workstations here serving e-mail to anywhere from 30-50 thousand users. The only time they've had to be rebooted was due to software upgrades, hardware upgrades or hardware failures. We have competant people running our NT servers. Perhaps you don't.
I'm not saying their applications are efficient in the least. I think it's considerably easier for a Unix admin to build and maintain a stable Unix server doing the same things that the NT server does.
But then again you don't know the whole story here, do you? There could be any number of reasons why they need NT up there. Everyone here is going by simply what was presented in the article. I promise you there's information we don't know.
With regards to Word/Outlook locking up the PC because of font problems, remember: The systems are going to be configured for reliability and optimal usability. They're not going to come loaded with a thousand different fonts. They're going to be working on these things, not building complicated proposals. With that in mind, it shouldn't be difficult to strip a Windows system down so that it works reliably.
NASA engineers aren't as stupid as you think
on
Space Station's LAN
·
· Score: 1
Do you think they hired some high-school VB programmer to design this thing? This guy is a LOT smarter than you are and I think you should give him a little more credit.
Just because he's not of the "use Linux for everything" mentality doesn't mean he's an idiot. He's probably got a whole staff of NASA engineers that are all approaching these problems and have decided upon the specs they have for reasons you (or I) have absolutely no knowledge of.
A lot of us are repeating ourselves (including myself) ad nauseum.
These Windows systems are going to be a bit more stable than your average Windows PC. The ground engineers are certainly going to strip these PC's of all non-essential/unstable drivers and applications before they send them up. They are going to do everything they can to be sure these things are as rock-solid and stable as can be. Despite the uninformed rantings you see on Slashdot, with some careful, clueful administration, any Windows system can be made as stable as you need it. I'm not saying it's *as* stable as Linux, but it can certainly be set up so that reboots every few hours or days won't happen. NASA engineers aren't stupid.
These systems are going to be used mainly for conveniences. Checking e-mail, doing word processing, spreadsheets and looking at the plotting software are HARDLY mission-critical activities. Assuming the machines ARE unreliable (which I doubt), does a reboot every week really matter?
With respect to adding a Unix box to supplement the NT box (like with sendmail, which I agree would be TONS better than Exchange), they may not have the mass or electricity for it. Every computer system they bring up adds more to the weight and power utilization. They could be working with some very tight limits that prohibit another system.
With respect to replacing the NT box with a Unix box, they may have a lot of software running on the NT machine that they need. From what I read, it sounds like they're using a centralized data gathering system running on that NT server. There could be any number of reasons why they need NT up there. Yes, they could rewrite the software to run on Unix, but why should they need to? They've already got it on NT.
No, not all of these astronauts are going to be familiar with Unix. Remember, these guys are just doing experiments and taking data. The analysis is usually done by the boys back home. Many of these guys neither have nor want any hard-core Unix experience. They don't want to have to mess with Linux if they can get the same features with an existing, FAMILIAR operating system.
Yes, I realize Linux *can* be set up to be as maintenance-free as Windows (which should be maintenance-free by the time the ground engineers are done with it) and the astronauts won't HAVE to delve into the internals of the OS. If this is the case, what advantage do the astronauts have? How can using Linux for the tasks that they're planning on using Windows for help them to be more productive, comfortable and safe? It can't. Any potential gains earned by using Linux are pummelled into uselessness by the amount of time and money required to train the astronauts to use it and to find and train ground engineers capable of supporting it.
Everyone whines about how much the ISS costs. Do you think it's going to be cheap to rewrite NT software for Unix? Do you think it's going to be cheap to train the astronauts to use a new operating system? A new e-mail system?
A great deal (most? all?) of the data collected is actually going to be analyzed on the ground. The scientists up there are in most cases just performing the experiments and gathering the data. They're doing no analysis, which means the scientific software isn't really needed in orbit.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you should seek somebody that complements your skills and desires. While I deal with computers a great deal, I do have interests in other areas like audio/visual media, writing and health/fitness. If you marry a girl that is just as passionate about computers as you are, that will basically be your entire life. Your marriage will eventually become stale and your life relatively boring.
If instead, you marry somebody that respects your work/hobbies but still has strong interests in other areas, you're more apt to broaden your horizons a little, try new things and generally have a more productive and exciting marriage.
Granted, I'm doing some serious generalizing here, but that's my chief complaint about geek girls.
Now, if I were different, if I didn't have such a strong background and interest in computers and networking, a geek girl might be exactly what I'd need.
Only use -9 as a last resort. The -9 flag cannot be trapped by the process, which means it can't clean up after itself.
A simple "kill" will suffice (I believe it sends a TERM(inate) signal by default, which is friendly), and that's what's used on my system to drop the connection. It's worked flawlessly under 5.0 and 5.2 with 2.2.1. Pppd catches the TERM signal and shuts down the connection in a friendly fashion.
Someone else mentioned "ifdown ppp0". Perhaps that's the "correct" way of doing it; I don't know.
Unlike some of the other frivilous patents, I think this one is pretty normal.
Just what DO you think patents should be used for?
Your examples are unrealistic for the majority of the population. Sure, it would be nice to know how to do the things you're describing, but you should not require everyone in the world to know how to do this in order to survive. (Most people are aware that there are circuit breakers in their homes. I've never met somebody that didn't know to check that.)
People KNOW that they can learn how to do the things that they pay others to do (repairmen, for example), but they CHOOSE NOT TO. The likelyhood that equipment is going to break down for them is low enough that they can afford to pay someone else (assuming they don't have a friend) to fix it.
People should not be required to learn how to repair and/or re-program the tools they use every day. The tools should be designed in such a way as to make them reliable and easy to use for its target consumer.
You're coming dangerously close to total arrogance here by stating the rest of society are idiots because they don't know the details about your specialization.
Chefs do not need to know the physics behind how a microwave oven works in order to prepare meals. If they were required to learn the scientific/physics basis behind how everything in their life worked, they would have no time left over to do what they're trying to do.
It's all about simple economics and marketing. If you invent something and bring it to market in two different ways, one with a complex/powerful interface requiring the operator to know its details, and one with a simple/efficient interface that required little knowledge of the internals, the latter would sell to the general public while the former would sell to those that were willing to learn (or already understood) the internals of the invention.
People should not be *forced* to spend hours (or weeks or months) effectively learning someone else's specialization (that's what it is, a specialization) in order to do relatively simple tasks.
I've decided the woman I marry will either be a technophobe or will at least not have a job/hobby dealing strictly with computers.
Having a woman to keep me grounded in the Real World is a requirement. Otherwise I get lost/lazy real easy.
IMO, a significant other should be my complement, not supplement. She should be strong in the areas I am weak.
Look at how many people *want* their lives to be known. I have a webcam in my living room, up essentially 24 hours a day. I have an online journal on my web page that pretty much outlines everything else a viewer might have missed.
Do I feel having dozens if not hundreds of strangers at any given time peering into my home is an invasion of my privacy? Not really. For the most part, I don't do anything differently. I've given up a bad habit or two as a result.
Naturally, I don't have one of these things in my bedroom or bathroom, but I doubt leaving your door unlocked and letting your neighbors stop by whenever they want implies that they can slip into your bedroom or bathroom either.
I do agree a bit with this guy's position. The government can track you down, watch your every move. People rich enough (or sly enough) can do the same thing. Why can't we return the favor?
Information about you is going to be gathered by people no matter what you do about it. If you legislate privacy protections, that's only going to push it into the hands of the unscrupulous. Instead, of you embrace it, and allow it to work both ways, hopefully both sides will grow up a little and the information won't really be as valuable as people once thought.
Though I'm not sure if I like or agree with this just yet, I think this article is very thought-provoking.
The adapter's what causes the problem, but the problem is that the batteries can explode.
You guys aren't going to be sitting right up against one of these things either. (Well, I don't know, maybe you are). I think you're meant to sit back from these a few feet (like TV-watching distance), which makes this resolution perfect (the latter even more so, since it takes advantage of the wide aspect ratio).
Similarly, though not quite as strong, 1.2 GHz is a harmonic for the 2.4 GHz microwaves and can have the same effects. A lot of the cellphone EMF scare has its roots here.
yabber, yabber, yabber. the anonymous pests of slashdot descend on yet another post that was veering dangerously close to the Other Side of the Coin. since you have no intention of discussing the matter without resorting to name-calling and the arrogant belief that your comments are more worthy of attention than someone else's, be quiet and let the rational people talk in peace . . .
That's like saying, "Thank God for all the murderers, rapists and tax evaders! Otherwise, our policeman would be out of jobs!!"
Your "white hat" hackers are far more of a boon to the security industry than the "black hat" crackers.
The article states that the 2D "mode" makes it behave just like any other monitor. In order to get the 3D effect, you need either a driver or applications designed to interlace the two stereo images in a manner that allows them to be directed at the individual eyes.
The article seems to imply that the light sources would be movable depending on which mode of operation the monitor was in. I don't know how this can be controlled. If it requires some software driver support, someone will need to code some software drivers in order for it to work.
As the article states, the 3D effect is created by directing one separate light source at each eye. Your glasses will work just like they always have.
Why does everyone assume that by putting OS X in object Y that OS X automatically control's Y's vital functions?
When the time comes to computerize the interface with an object's critical operations, a suitable OS/application suite will be developed that will be ideal for the situation.
you guys realize that windows has very specific flaws, even if microsoft keeps stuffing your brain with the opposite?
Oh, I agree, 100%. I'm not saying these systems will be *as* stable or problem-free as their Unix counterparts. All I'm saying is that the astronauts certainly have experience configuring Windows systems (like any other moderately educated computer user), and that's what they've been using to date on the ground.
All I was saying was that there are valid reasons for NASA choosing to have the astronauts use Windows for their "personal" computers. The silly claims about them wasting hours upon hours rebooting the machines every other minute and having to reinstall Windows every few weeks are just stupid.
I will think that you MS-guys are learning too.
Hah! Nobody's ever called me an "MS-guy" before. Usually I'm arguing in Linux's/Unix's favor, but I'm afraid for this article I have to step up to Microsoft's defense, simply because the Linux bigots feel they have to come out of the woodwork with every conceivable Windows cliche. It's pathetic. If you have a reasonable, educated argument, FEEL FREE to post it. Some have. But for those that feel they just have to jump on the "Linux r00lZ! WindoZe SuX!!" bandwagon without ANY real knowledge of the circumstances of the situation need to get a life.
time in space is more expensive than per-pound costs. An hour of an astronaut's work is way more expensive than a couple of pounds. Moron.
Ahh.. I thought this was going to be one of the first "real" dialogs, but I see we've resorted to name-calling. *sigh*.. It was going so well, too.
If the single two factors we had to consider was the astronaut's time and the payload mass, I'd be tempted to agree. However, neither you nor I have even a MINIMAL idea of what tasks these astronauts are going to be doing and what exactly they'll be doing with their '95 machines and the NT server aside from what's already been discussed.
Again, these are NASA engineers. You can be brutally certain that they have considered using non-Windows operating systems to do the task, but for some mixture of reasons, they opted instead to use Windows. Why? *I* don't know. *I* didn't make the decisions. It's not me you should be calling a moron. You have absolutely NO idea what factors they're considering. Again, they're not stupid. Give them some credit.
Hell, if you're really that concerned, write NASA and see if you can get more information about their decision.
don't think any other OS has crashed in space, other than Windows, mind you. True, Ariane blew up last year for a software problem..... but, still, is anyone aware of a "software problems in space" site ?
Again, I agree that Windows is not the most stable OS choice, but again, this is not the only factor to consider. You don't have all of the information. Don't be so quick to judge.
Besides, these are NOT CRITICAL MACHINES. A crash or reboot is not going to cause the loss of millions of dollars of astronaut time. I'm not saying that it's NOT going to crash. Let's say that an astronaut's machine requires a reboot once every week (an easy goal for NASA -- my Win98 PC at home, running continuously, used nearly continuously by various people, needs to be rebooted an average of once every two weeks). That's what, a maximum of 3 minutes? 3 minutes/week is nothing. He could easily spend 30 seconds a day brushing his teeth a bit longer.
The guys at NASA are smart, but I'd bet against a nobel prize that there are better solutions than this one.
Why don't you write them and enlighten them? Say, "Hi guys, I know you've been studying this problem for months if not years, and I know you have degrees in all of these types of things, and I know I have but an inkling of knowledge regarding what you're going to be needing these machines to be doing and the environment it's all going to be working in, but really, you're all morons! You could be doing it SO much better if you used Linux!"
Please...
This could be taken either way. This implies that the parents who (negligently?) let their child hop on the 'Net and browse porn sites are JUST as much at fault as anybody.
If you shared yards with a neighbor that owned a ferocious, chained-up snarling beast of a dog, what would you do?
You could simply not let your child go in the back yard. That's a pretty simple solution but really leaves the kid stifled as he can't go out and explore the back yard. You could take your child outside only with your supervision, just in case he ended up wandering too close to the Beast. That could work, but would be really inconvenient/boring for you and would really only allow your kid to go out when it fit your schedule. You could erect a fence to separate the yards. That would let your child have fun in the back yard without worrying about what's in your neighbor's yard.
What would you do?
Hopefully you can identify the parallels here with the topic at hand. If not, let me know and I can spell it out for you.
I have my threshold set to -5 and the only comments I've ever seen *deleted* were First Comment posts. I do occasionally see an article scored down to -2, -3, or even -4 so perhaps you should adjust your threshold down a bit further.
It's not "censorship", either, since a lot of people have their thresholds set to -1 or lower by default and they still see them (as can ANYONE if they just adjust their viewing threshold). It's just scoring by the moderators.
Moderators cannot delete comments, by the way. They can only adjust the relative score of posts. If a deletion occurs, it's one of the admins of the site that's doing it.
It also helps to support slashdot if you actually follow the ads and/or buy something, but it's up to you I guess..
I agree that Unix tends to be a superior, more efficient and reliable solution over anything provided by NT.
In NT's defense, however, I've really gotta say that with competant, clueful admins, most any Windows machine can be made just as stable as its Unix counterpart.
Most of the problems creep in with unstable drivers or applications or tight memory/system constraints. Most qualified NT admins, though, should be aware of these issues and know how to compensate. If you/your staff is incompetant in this regard, the move to Unix was probably a good thing.
These guys aren't going to be using their 95 machines to locate another workstation connected via PPTP. They're doing your typical e-mail reading, word processing and generic SOHO tasks.
We have a "cluster" of NT workstations here serving e-mail to anywhere from 30-50 thousand users. The only time they've had to be rebooted was due to software upgrades, hardware upgrades or hardware failures. We have competant people running our NT servers. Perhaps you don't.
I'm not saying their applications are efficient in the least. I think it's considerably easier for a Unix admin to build and maintain a stable Unix server doing the same things that the NT server does.
But then again you don't know the whole story here, do you? There could be any number of reasons why they need NT up there. Everyone here is going by simply what was presented in the article. I promise you there's information we don't know.
With regards to Word/Outlook locking up the PC because of font problems, remember: The systems are going to be configured for reliability and optimal usability. They're not going to come loaded with a thousand different fonts. They're going to be working on these things, not building complicated proposals. With that in mind, it shouldn't be difficult to strip a Windows system down so that it works reliably.
Do you think they hired some high-school VB programmer to design this thing? This guy is a LOT smarter than you are and I think you should give him a little more credit.
Just because he's not of the "use Linux for everything" mentality doesn't mean he's an idiot. He's probably got a whole staff of NASA engineers that are all approaching these problems and have decided upon the specs they have for reasons you (or I) have absolutely no knowledge of.
Everyone whines about how much the ISS costs. Do you think it's going to be cheap to rewrite NT software for Unix? Do you think it's going to be cheap to train the astronauts to use a new operating system? A new e-mail system?
A great deal (most? all?) of the data collected is actually going to be analyzed on the ground. The scientists up there are in most cases just performing the experiments and gathering the data. They're doing no analysis, which means the scientific software isn't really needed in orbit.