When Kottke pointed to this article in New Scientist wondering what would happen if all humans disappeared tomorrow, it sucked me right in with the line, 'Alien visitors coming to Earth 100,000 years hence will find no obvious signs that an advanced civilisation ever lived here.'

The piece goes on to explain that there would still be paleontological evidence, but outward signs would be erased by weather and other natural processes.

Yet that's restricted to the Earth. On the Moon, our relics from Apollo landings and various robotic missions will likely remain for millions of years, unrusting and uneroded, just like our geostationary satellites and much of our miscellaneous space junk. Orbiters around other planets might still remain too, with the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft vectoring ever further out of our solar system far away.

So yes, we could disappear from Earth with hardly a trace, but our traces would remain in space. Comforting?

Microsoft’s Architecture Journal is a quarterly magazine, providing a world-class forum for the publication of unique articles on how good architecture can help create great implementations. Microsoft’s Architecture Journal is available as a printed subscription (you can order your own here) and also online here

Now that TechEd is out of the way, I'm looking for abstracts and ideas for Issue #9, the theme of which is Software Factories (think modeling, DSLs, development approaches etc.). Writing for the Architecture Journal gives you the opportunity to get your thoughts and ideas in the hands of enterprise, solution and infrastructure architects around the world – that’s a growing number of over 41,000 subscribers! In addition, your article will be localized into multiple languages and distributed at major events and conferences worldwide.

The cut off date for abstracts for the next issue is July 21st.  If you are interested in making a submission, here are the details:

How do I make a submission?

To submit an idea for a paper, you are asked to send the following:

-          A 2 – 4 paragraph abstract explaining how your paper fits the theme of the magazine

-          A 1 – 2 paragraph bio

-          A list of previously published articles

Submissions should be made via Email to editors@architecturejournal.net

Each issue of the Architecture Journal follows a theme (for example; integration, workflow, data).  80% of the issue is dedicated to this theme.  20% is reserved for articles that we wish to print, but do not follow the theme. 

We receive many submissions for each issue, so we encourage you to put time and thought into the submission.

After the call for papers has ended, everyone that submits an idea will be notified via Email as to whether their submission was successful or not. 

What happens if my submission is accepted?

If accepted, you’ll have between 4 and 6 weeks to submit two drafts and a final version of your paper.  These dates will be clearly communicated.  Your first draft will be reviewed by an editorial board to ensure it is on message for the magazine.   Your second draft and final version will be subject to both technical and content editing.  You’ll be asked to be available to work with our editors via Email during this process. 

The magazine is generally available in print and online 4 weeks after final drafts are submitted.

What are the guidelines for papers printed in the Architecture Journal?

We recommend that papers are between 3,500 and 4,500 words in length – although we have accepted shorter and longer papers in the past.  The article should be submitted using Microsoft Word.  Diagrams should be submitted in either Microsoft Visio or Microsoft PowerPoint.

Do I still own the work?

Yes.  We ask you to sign a release form that gives Microsoft permission to reprint the article, but ownership of the paper remains with you, the author.

Will I get paid for writing?

We do not currently pay authors for contributing to the Architecture Journal. 

Will I get copies of the magazine as an author?

After printing you’ll be sent 10 copies of the Journal for your own use.  Additional copies can be requested.

It is now official. The true identity of GoogleGuy has been reveal by the Guy himself. It won't come as a surprise to most people in the industry, because it was all but certain by this point. Matt Cutts is GoogleGuy.

Danny Sullivan report that the admission came at a recent Search Engine Strategies (SES) conference:

I moderated the panel, and the confession came out when a member of the audience flat out asked Matt if he was GoogleGuy. Matt hesitated just a moment, and I could swear I could almost hear the internal debate of 'should I finally confess or not.' And then he did, saying as Rand notes that he sort of backed into being the GoogleGuy who posts on forums and blogs. Matt then added that today, GoogleGuy might be one of many different people from Google commenting in public areas.

For the past several years, many people have strongly believed that Matt Cutts was GoogleGuy, to the point of feeling certain of it. Still, to my knowledge, it wasn't 'proven', and until now, he has not made a public admission. For for what its worth, it is now official: Matt Cutts is GoogleGuy.

Or maybe its not official?

In a postscript to the Search Engine Watch article, it is mentioned that Matt Cutts has disputed the reported admission over on the seomoz blog, saying:

I didn't take the question as 'Are you GoogleGuy?'. I took the question as 'How did you end up doing a bunch of webmaster communication duties?'. Maybe I misheard the question though.

So there you go. You can decide for yourself. ;)