Various German universities also offer study programs in English with the possibility of learning German on the side. Arguably the most systematic and broadest choice of options is at Jacobs University (http://m.jacobs-university.de/). (Disclaimer: I teach there.) These programs are typically not free (ours are not), but they still provide very good value as compared to out-of-state tuition or tuition at private universities in the US.

It should be mentioned that American students tend to struggle more than others, especially in the theoretical science and engineering disciplines, even though enthusiasm and motivation is high. Still, for students prepared to work hard, a very good alternative to some of the top-ranked US universities. And studying in Europe will provide a perspective on the world unlike any one would get at home...

If Google gets this onto enough devices, then little by little they will dictate the de-facto standard for OOXML, i.e., how it's "really" supposed to work and render beyond the ECMA paperwork, and Microsoft will have to make sure that their programs will be Google compatible. Google might just have enough market share to fully commoditize word processors and spread sheets, something that OO/LO started but did not get beyond the tipping point.

I second the previous poster. There are strange over-generalizations and omissions in Moore's statements that make me suspect that money rather than conviction is driving him.

Here a list, maybe other Slashdotters have more current information on these points (it's basically what I remember from observing this issue from the distance over more than 20 years or so).

• No mention of geothermal energy, although it apparently has very significant potential (I have seen estimates in the range of 100% of the current global electricity consumption).
  
• No discussion of the potential to intelligently schedule energy usage to best match the predicted supply curve from wind/solar and other non-constant sources.
  
• The impact of the Chernobyl desaster on millions of people and the economy of many countries is inadequately described by mentioning just the 56 people whos "deaths could be directly attributed to the accident."
  
• One of the big problems with reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is that the volume of nuclear waste is increased sharply (I remember reading the factor of 10 some time ago in connection with current plants in England and France). The specific radioactivity is obviously decreased in this process, but the waste still needs to be stored safely and is contaminated with all sorts of aggresive chemicals used in reprocessing that make handling tricky. I am not saying that this cannot be done, but stating that "it will be possible to use that energy and to greatly reduce the amount of waste that needs treatment and disposal" sounds more like an industry advert.
  
• There are a bunch of alternative reactor designs which have the following properties: No chain reaction possible even when all control is lost, use of low grade uranium an/or thorium (the latter being more ubiquitous and less toxic than uranium) so that the fuel is not weapon grade, relatively cold nuclear waste which can be be permanently locked away after a short cool-down period and doesn't give economic incentive for reprosessing (much less of a mess, and no plutonium cycle with its unfortunate non-peaceful dual use). Some designs have prototype implementations (one example is the Thorium High Temperature Reactor design; a commercial version was built in Germany, but quickly dismantled because of engineering screw-ups - the thing kept breaking down and was leaking small amounts of radioactivity - local opposition and apparently uncertain economic prospects due to its breaking down all the time, but the basic design was, as far as I know, validated). A lot of this is not well tested, none without drawbacks (an uncontrolled THTR accident cannot melt the core, but would apparently cause the concrete shield to chemically decompose on a time scale of weeks or so, so there is no magical universal safety). I believe that anybody seriously discussing "green" nuclear energy with a long-term perspective must take such developments into consideration, in particular because of the obvious advantage for nonproliferation (e.g., if Iran had currently access to well-developed economically sound THTR technology, there would be absolutely no ambiguity with regards to their nuclear ambition).
  
• The denial of vulnerability to terrorist attack is very naive. Even if the reactor core was safe from a direct hit (which is not the case with many currently existing reactors, but this is not the point here), there are plenty of vulnerable points in the supply and waste processing chain that could wreck at the very least economic havoc in densly populated areas (and most regions on this planet are, or will be shortly, in this category).
  

That said, I personally believe that there is a good case for nuclear power as a long term energy source, but let's not get fooled by the global warming scares from an ex-Greenpeacer-turned-industry-consultant into accepting short term profit-maximizing all-out nuclear solutions.