The D100 makes great images RIGHT NOW. There may be newer cameras coming out that have a higher pixel count, but don't count on them necessarily being cheaper. If you don't print larger than 11x16, then you have enough pixels at 6 Mpixels. I routinely print crisp A3-size prints (acutally 10.75 x 15.5") from my D100 that rival 35 mm film. The new 12-24 mm Nikkor lens will fill the only real hole in the lens line for the D100 in a few months. Finally, nobody uses the camera to transfer data to the computer. (And if they do, they shouldn't.) A card reader is the way to go: they are cheap, and as fast as whatever the current technology is.
Keep this in mind: even if a higher resolution comes out tomorrow, the D100 WILL STILL make great images that are a good as it was when it was new. If a D100 is enough--and it is for many advanced amateurs and some professionals--then it's, well, enough. Only you can decide if the state of current technology is sufficient to meet your personal needs.
I am not sanguine about the digital SLR market ever "consolidating" any more than the computer market has consolidated. You can spend forever waiting for the next, better technology just around the corner. And in the digital camera world right now, we might be getting to the point that the image sensor size is growing faster than memory technology. Your 14 Mpixel camera is going to take 7 Mbyte JPEGs, 14+ Mbyte RAW files, and 42 Mbyte TIFFs. On a $100 256 Mbyte card, that's only 36 JPEGs, 18 RAW files, or 6 TIFFs. Realistically, you're going to want to shoot RAW files when you can, and that's going to mean you're going to have to own 1 Gbyte flash cards to get the most out of a 14 Mpixel camera. That will cost $$$. With the D100 I can get by on 2 256 Mbyte and one 512 Mbyte card for now, but even that is a bit cramped when shooting RAW files. And don't forget the computer storage and image backup needs for a hi-res camera. You're talking about high-capacity hard drives for temporary image storage, and DVDs for image archiving for such large images. And a more capable computer to edit large files...etc.
I actually think that 5-8 Mpixels might be the current sweet-spot in digital photography, where memory storage costs are still relatively modest, and image quality is sufficent up to a size that is large enough to satisfy a larger fraction of serious users. I will bet that the 6 Mpixel range camera will be around for a while, certainly until large-capacity flash memory costs come down significantly.
Sometimes the most advanced tool is not appropriate for the job at hand, even if it might do it "better." Usually it's more cost-effective to use a tool that is just capable of doing the job at hand. I have found the D100 to be more than capable of satisfying my photographic needs. (And I will be significantly happier about it when the new 12-24mm lens is available. I'll be one of the first in line...)