Windows embedded is still supported.

There is no monopoly. There are alternative OSes you can install on the exact same hardware.

Because the point is that they want to stop supporting it. Making users feel the pain for getting upgrades is one way to do it. If the patches are free, the problem continues.
And no, I simply do not believe that people would pay $100 per year for patches to XP. They may say that, but when the bill comes, they will not.

If she is willing to pay a nominal fee, why not spend that money to upgrade the OS? After all, it seems that you are willing to help move her to Linux (which is not a bad idea), so I guess you could also help her upgrade to Win7 or Win8.1?

The case is based on false assumptions.
Microsoft still provide support for Windows XP to those who are willig to pay for it: http://arstechnica.com/informa...
Case closed.

Because all information collection in space is expensive.
Additional detectors, data storage and transmission capacity has a cost. Not only in monetary terms, but more weight on the satelite add cost and reduce lifespan. Satelite to ground bandwidth is limited, so collecting useless information takes capacity from useful information.
Why use valuable resources on collecting information that is already collected and available from commercial sources?

We have some pretty good assumptions and some knowledge which will give an inevitable result:
The weight of the plane is about 150 to 200 tonnes without fuel.
The plane most likely lost thrust at pretty close to cruising altitude.
We can assume cruising altitude of approx 20000ft (6000m) give or take a few thousand feet
The plane was flying for hours over the open ocean without any attempt at correcting the direction to land. Australia is easy to find and would only need a small correction. Based on this, we can assume that there were nobody piloting it.

So it is safe to assume that it lost power around cruising altitude, and after that descended uncontrolled to the ocean. Without power, it would lose forward speed. Gravity kicks in. Vertical speed increases. There are nobody in the plane who can convert vertical speed to horizontal speed to enable a soft landing. Water is hard. Very hard. The result is inevitable.

Preferably. But we have to accept that some people may just come here for something like this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

The plane which landed in Hudson River had lost the engines, but was under control by an experienced and fully alert pilot.
If a plane flies over the ocean for several hours, it is highly likely that it is flying on autopilot with no pilot controlling it. If there was a pilot controlling it, why would he not try to reach land? Without a competent pilot, landing on water will destroy the plane.

In a word: No.

First: Due to its weight, it would definitely not "skip across the water". Its structure would simply not withstand the shock.
Also, the plane would need to land on water at a very specific angle and with as low speed as possible to "land" and not "crash".
As the plane crashed due to being out of fuel, it is totally unthinkable that it landed at that exact angle, and in perfect balance.

Why would a spy satellite pick up and store information that is pretty much publicly available?

Actually, it is in the interview that the post is based on... You should check it, It is quite informative.

Unfortunately, I have not found a simple phone with tethering. Not that I have looked too hard, but it seems that the basic models do not have it.

Seems most manufacturers (and users?) forgot the "phone" bit. A good old dumb Nokia beat all of them when it comes to voice quality and coverage.

With some improvements.

With the improvements in the 2014 version, I think the GUI works quite well. But I never liked the old GUI (which was getting VERY old...).