For modern web-based applications, you are correct that there is little or no reason for the Caps Lock key.

But for the MILLIONS of people whose job requires them to use antiquated legacy systems, it is often essential.

The largely character-based systems used for accounting, order entry, invoicing, and other core functions are often accessed through terminal emulation software or first generation client-server software. These systems often have a great number of "lookup" codes for everything from SKU to client numbers that fail when using lower case. Those still using first generation client-server software are especially inconvenienced as some of these programs have no option to remap the keyboard.

The sheer volume and costs of re-engineering these systems mean that they will be with us for years to come, no matter how ugly and inefficient when compared to modern systems.

(Well, you did ask.)

I use OO as a file-conversion utility (but never for anything else), and was originally dismissive of the amount of attention this thread generated. Over the years, I have supported companies large and small. If you include my direct reports, I have supported thousands of users. Maybe twice in that time have I run into (or heard of) anyone who disclosed that they use OO at home or work.

So I did a little Googling and was amazed to find that multiple sources ". . . estimated that market share of Open Office amounts to 7% for office use and 20% for home use."

"http://books.google.com/books?id=B2Wcn_Io9B8C&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=%22market+share+of+open+office%22&source=bl&ots=GU9-1psXXG&sig=K50OV3lD3ot-PPJYa_gv2S6P6dk&hl=en&ei=hw-7TLXUE8H-8AaHntjsBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22market%20share%20of%20open%20office%22&f=false"

If accurate, this makes OO a larger threat to Microsoft than Google as each copy of OO represents a bigger threat to one of Microsoft's three significant streams of profitable revenue (Office, Windows, and Xbox) than anything offered up thus far by Google.

That this "underground" success has happened despite distro companies from Redhat to Ubuntu failing to develop marketing campaigns to bring OO to greater public attention means the opportunity for greater success for OO may still lay before us.

Right now, iPad and Android users are adopting non-MS office apps by the thousands. Perhaps forks like Libre Office will rejuvenate efforts to finally bring a cross-platform (Windows, MAC OS, MAC IOS, Android, and Linux) office that will simplify support efforts.

Stanford University's "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)" ( http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html ) has an analysis of how literature of Western Civilization has treated the subject of Zombies beginning with Descartes at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/.

If the course in question incorporates this level of discussion in the classes and homework and enable the students to improve their critical thinking and related analytical skills, it really doesn't matter if the "hook" to get students to take the course was the subject of Zombies, slasher flicks, or even a "critical" analysis of the Police Academy movies.

I have one off-spring currently in college studying to be an electrical engineer and can only hope that sometime in the next few years he can take a course that provides that type of "cross subject" context.

If an ISP built their business without special advantages over their competition, your point would be valid. However, in the U.S., most high-speed ISP's successfully lobbied for monopoly or duopoly positions as utilities where competitors were prohibited from stringing their own wires on utility poles and tunnels. In return for this advantage, they agreed to operate as regulated entities.

Perhaps as 4G and other high-speed wireless companies come to market, there will be more competition and those original companies can then lobby for removal of the regulatory environment. Until then, we will hear a lot of screaming from both sides.

This problem is not limited to "old" equipment.

My less-than-two-years-old top-of-the-line Panasonic microwave stops all wireless communications in the house when operating.

Assuming you dump twice and compare the output, lack of error checking should not be a problem.

With regard to do the transfer to a newer system, cables.com sells a 25-pin Serial-to-USB cable (http://www.cables.com/Products/USB-to-DB25-Serial-Adapter---USB-A-Male-to-DB25M__USB-DB25.aspx).

Have fun!

The first argument in favor of CFLs is that their total environmental impact (energy used plus manufacturing costs) are more favorable than incandescent bulbs. Maybe that is true in your home, but doubtful in mine. While most CFL packaging claim they should last 4 to 8 years with regular use, they seem to last less than year in my home in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

While the power fluctuations here might be above average, my 3 televisions, 5 monitors, 3 desktops, 4 laptops, Xbox, Wii, and Playstation have not had shortened lifespans that I can recall.

With regard to your assumption that I am buying inferior product, I am buying the popular name brands offered by my Home Depot, Lowes, and Sears. If you are saying that the consumer needs to go online an search out some industrial-strength superior product, I volley back and say that CFLs are "not ready for primer time" in many parts of the US.

As an example, I have 5 "high hat" lights in my living room. Three are "dimmable" CFL flood lights rated for both indoor and outdoor use. As my control, I left two lights as incandescent. I replaced all five lights in January of 2009. All 5 lights failed and required replacement before Halloween.

I have other mixtures of CFL and incandescent lights in many rooms and outdoors as well. The only uniform observation that I have is that there is not a single month of the year that I am not required to change a CFL in my home.

As a result, I doubt if my switch to CFL has had any positive impact on the environment.

With ads - without ads - what a waste of argument when geeks could instead debate an interesting arms race.

The ad-blocking technologies work because the ads themselves are easily identified by the source web site as different from the main web page. A small change in architecture would allow ads to be funneled through the main presenting web page server and integrated with the main web site in real-time.

Current versions of Ad-block plus and No-script would then be rendered useless for the purpose of ad-blocking.

What the opposing side would then need to do is develop databases of ads, analyze screens and then repaint screens with blank space where the ads where.

No wait! The ad presenters would then need to problematically vary every ad as appearing to be unique.

No wait! The blockers could then use Bayesian logic to detect areas of presentation close enough to ads to be suppresses anyway.

Whole new levels point-counter-point spy-vs.-spy program evolution!

Whole new discussions, trolls, and flame-wars about the nuances of why one approach is SO MUCH BETTER at blocking (or overcoming blocking).

That would be the slash.dot, SourceForge, and Mozilla Add-on communities I have come to know and love.

Bwahahahahahahaahahh..........

Some of my users are either overwhelmed with multiple distractions or uncomfortable with technology or both. In any case, my team is responsible for figuring out what triggered error conditions and getting them fixed regardless of user cooperation or contribution.

When users do not give detailed and accurate information about an error condition and what they were doing prior to the error condition, there are some creative options available.

The CNET.com download site has any number of screen monitoring products (i.e e-Surveiller, The Best Keylogger, Shadow Keylogger, Local Keylogger Pro, etc.) for recording and monitoring PC activity. These products not only record keystrokes, but also provide screenshots and/or video.

For my users, I always let them know before installing such software and let them know that any performance impact will only be until we identify the error conditions and the activities that triggered the error conditions. (We also notified all employees in the employee handbook that we do this and also have the employees re-sign their understanding of this every year.)

By using these tools, we can reduce problem-solving time and associated user frustration.