If it quacks like a duck, it IS a duck.

But if it hasn't quacked yet, what is it?

Sure, Google/Mozilla COULD be preparing to put themselves in an MS-like position by implementing standards before they're set, and they COULD do what MS did and refuse to change their implementation for the next 10 years, even when the standard is revised.

But will they? Seeing their track record, I would bet against it. In fact, I would bet on them being the early adopters, providing the necessary feedback to bring the standard from the drawing board to reality.

What worries me most isn't what Moz/Goog are doing, but what MS ISN'T doing or WON'T be doing. If HTML5 isn't in IE8, when do you think they will implement? IE9? IE10? Seeing how long it took them to properly support CSS2 (kinda), I would bet on HTML5 being standard for a good 3 years before IE implements it (or some bastardized version of it)...which, if their market share remains even close to what it is, means it is useless in any practical sense. Even once they DO implement HTML5, we have to wait for IE6, IE7 and IE8 to die out.

So yeah, if Moz/Goog implementing HTML5 early helps get that ball rolling, I'm all for it if it means I may actually be able to use it within my lifetime.

Yeah, if a whole bunch of them decided to do something else instead, there would be no dire consequences. If a whole bunch of them were forced to on the other hand...say, because their signal went blank during a switchover...well gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Aside from general anger at the situation, we have:
$116 BILLION (46.3 BIL in the US alone) in revenue generated from Television Advertising in 2007 alone (the most recent report I could get with a quick google search, though you can be sure that number only goes UP each year). I'm sure our economy could handle losing that money without ANY problem whatsoever.

Numerous jobs, all the way from grips to production assistant to program manager to the more illustrious positions of each show on television. Let's not forget maintenance positions, linemen, customer service...I can't find any numbers on this, but I'm sure you could imagine, it ain't a small number.

How about the cultural impact? Say what you will about the value of television as a cultural export, but the fact remains that part of our culture today is the result of shows from yesteryear. Additionally, a decent amount of money changes hands just exporting this cultural medium between countries.

That's only a few examples I could come up with after waking up from 2 hours of sleep- if I were more awake, I'm sure I could come up with more. Either way, it seems you have a very subjective opinion on what is and isn't important.

It's not important that people watch tv for the content, but the world has adapted to television, and relies on it at the very least from an economic standpoint- this is true whether you agree with it or not, whether you think it SHOULD be that way or not, and whether you WANT it to be that way or not.

Yes, in this case the popularity of the medium has has made it important.

Bah. Thought I navigated away before pressing submit. TV made me stupid, I guess ;)

I know it's a joke (Duh, The Onion), but living in Chapel Hill (where the "Area Man" is from) I think I met this guy. At least 5 times per day.

Seriously, the population of "I don't watch TV and am proud of it!" crowd here is a little alarming. And really annoying.

Granted, these are usually the same people who will start fires on Franklin Street just to jump over them every time UNC wins a basketball game, or townies who get wasted at one of the myriad local bars, so everything with a grain of salt, I suppose.

I know it's a joke (duh, The Onion), but being a resident of Chapel Hill, I do believe I met that guy. At least 5 times a day.

Really, the population here is about 60% (obligatory made up percentage) people who don't watch TV and are (a little too) proud of it. As much as I love the people here, this breed is really f-ing annoying.

Granted, some of these people are the same people who will light bonfires just to jump over them whenever UNC wins a basketball game - the others are mostly townies who spend "prime time" tv hours getting wasted at one of the myriad local bars, so everything with a grain of salt, I suppose.

I personally hope the griping about "i don't get reception" or "i wasn't prepared for the switch" stops as well. Hopefully, the self-righteous "I don't even watch TV" crowd will STFU then too.

It's cool that you don't watch TV. But more than 238,000,000 people do...so, yeah. The DTV switch is kinda important.

And, you know, software.

But who needs software when you have an OS!

I still say it was an electromagnetic pocket gone out of control because a Scotsman forgot to push the button.

I have mod points, and was going to mod this down as flamebait for the last line, but found the rest of your post interesting/insightful...but felt it more appropriate to mention each - you don't seem to be at a shortage of modding on this post anyway ;)

Yeah, because when lithium is already found to curb suicide rates, it's much more likely that it's an element OTHER than lithium in the water that is lowering rates in this study...Occam's Razor much?

This wasn't a study on whether or not Lithium lowers suicide rates- it's been known to for decades. Why are you even questioning that? It's simply the published results of one city with varying levels of Lithium in its water supplies. Is it any surprise that as levels of lithium increase, suicide rates decrease? No. It's not the least bit surprising. Because that was never in question- until you brought it into question.

Like the GP said: in this case - as in any other where the subject is already well-known and the outcome can be accurately predicted with reasonable certainty - correlation IS causation. Because the research has already gone into the cause, the effect, and the correlation between the two.

A relatively small reason, but until Wake on LAN works over WiFi, I'll be keeping my ethernet cables, TYVM.

Are you serious? I hope that's a joke...
Why the fsck should Pen Tablet features prevent you from playing a video game?

I'm a graphic designer by trade (bet you can't figure out my OS of choice...), so I use a pen tablet almost exclusively between 9 and 5, but I also enjoy playing video games in my off time...am I to believe that I need to make a choice between my profession and my hobby because Microsoft allows a PEN TABLET DRIVER to prevent an app from running properly?

Sure, the game should have been tested more on Vista64- hell, it probably was...on a system WITHOUT a pen tablet- but the fact that such an obscure issue could still exist (from one of the oldest and most successful companies in the biz no less) in 2009 just baffles me.

The problem is (as said in the subject) counting on a little bit of technology to overcome a massive amount of marketing.

Nobody's going to download the content if they don't know about it.

The only way to get more people to listen to your artists is to promote them at (or above) the level of major labels. Unfortunately, there are pretty high barriers to entry. You can leverage the social web to your advantage, however the major labels are already doing that- plus radio air time, plus in-store advertising, plus cross-promotion, plus plus plus...it's quite the goliath to take on. The best you can do is hope to take the advantage by fighting on your "turf" (the Internet). But even that would require some pretty heavy lifting as far as research is concerned- including lots and lots of trial and error. To win (in this case, winning simply means competing- that's really the best you can hope for), you'll have to do something that the major labels aren't already doing and aren't able to do- probably by taking advantage of the fact that their decisions are decided by boards while indie labels' decisions are generally made by a smaller group of people or the artists themselves.

However, expecting Indie to win against Major Label (even in the court of illegality) by simple virtue of the means of acquisition sounds pretty naive (no offense intended). It's effectively the same as expecting indie to win against Major Labels in retail outlets without spending a dime on advertising.

Speaking as a fan of Indie music: of course indie by its very nature is not built to become mainstream, so the numbers will usually be lower- artists are generally more free to innovate and do what they do out of love for their craft (leading- usually- to a better overall product) with fewer listeners than those with a large following- and not just from an "employment" standpoint. The pressure to produce for the fans instead of the self can be too much for some artists, and it's far too common to see them fizzle out into nothing, while the fans scratch their heads wondering how an artist who once seemed to speak to them now produces generic tripe.

I warned you that I don't know much of anything on the subject :)

So these plasma channels are more of a result of the light being there than something that guides their direction? If that is the case, how does shifting the intensity to one side cause it to curve?

Or is it more that light can influence its own path when traveling through a medium of a certain density? How much of an influence are we talking here? And is this the same principal behind refraction, or is that something else entirely?

I never knew that they created their own channels to travel through, though I guess it makes sense. I seem to recall scientists of yore once thinking that light traveled along its own self-generated aether. I guess plasma channels are kind of like that, so it would appear we've come full circle (Light creates its own medium to travel through, no it doesn't, it kind of does.)

Does anyone know if all light behaves this way or just lasers (Or lasers of a certain intensity)? Better yet, a resource that is (at least somewhat) plain English where I could get a primer on light behavior? I really know nothing about this and would love to learn more.