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.

This is true. But it's also done as satire. The dog and pony show, which is in some respects pure genius, is all in an effort to shine a light on the ridiculousness of the media and the institutions that it reports on.

Sir Dr. Stephen T. Colbert D.F.A. attacks most "harshly" the things that common sense says there's no point in attacking. Controversial subjects are glazed over while minutia are battled. It's a show that goes much farther than the reach of the TCR stage. In a recent interview on the Today show (or was it GMA?) when asked if he would turn down the naming of the module after him, his response was laughter, followed by something along the lines of "Are you serious? Why would I do that?"

But that's not to say the guests who come on his show behave in the same way. Yes, they know what the show is. They know what it represents. They know that the host is a fun-house version of FOX News. But that doesn't prevent them from going on for their own purposes (usually to promote a book, or in the case of NASA- to gain popular support).

I think they'll be naming it after him just based on the question: if they don't plan to announce the name is Colbert, why would they go on his show to announce it?

Either way, I'm sure it'll be great for ratings. I know I'll be tuning in (I catch maybe 50% of the episodes). He knows how to build drama where there is none (always has), and how to get his audience to care about relatively trivial things. That's 90% of the reason we're talking about this on /.

True. But the character also needs things to be egotistical about. And let's face it, NASA needs all the public support they can get. And I think they know it. Their job has - regrettably - primarily been justified by the government as a morale builder. It's in their own best interest to keep people excited about space. If they had a vote that they didn't plan on upholding, that would just cause those that participated to lose faith in the organization.

Outside of the tongue-in-cheek nature of the show, it still wouldn't be "kosher" to announce the name is something other than the host's when on the host's show when said host was in the running and your organization has faced criticism for considering other names when the host's name got the most votes.

Also, I think the "we can name it whatever we want" clause was primarily stuck in there to prevent the next module from being named something like "PissFountain 9000"

I think, judging by their chosen venue, the name they release will be obvious. To do otherwise would just be tacky.

"Yes, we'll get all the recognition we can from your show, but not scratch your back in kind."

Glad they went with it, as it was the winner. Aside from that, the name marks much more than anything like Serenity would.

Serenity shows the world what? There are a few scifi geeks in NASA? At most, maybe that they find inspiration in grand goals. Naming it Colbert, on the other hand, signifies a return to pop-culture significance. That the people are excited about space again. Or at the very least, naming it after Colbert will ensure that the module stays in the public eye as he continues his "status updates" (like he did for his baby eagle and a few other stunts). It would be a huge missed marketing opportunity NOT to name it after a television host who has supported science more than any other in recent history.

Of course, they already know this. That's why it's being revealed on his show.

And what do you think those papers are worth without the readers?

It IS a consumer based business. The product that the papers deliver to their customers is the consumer, just as Google's customers are the advertisers and their product is the consumer.

Just like on the web, without the subscriber count and page views, the medium is worthless (from a revenue stand point). Something tells me Google gets it. Even (especially) their lawyers.

In fact, the only difference between Google and old News Corporations is who is providing the content. Before their myriad services and free "products" (I use that term in quotes because remember- the product is you, anything else they offer you is just a new medium to provide your eyes through, or to keep your eyes there longer) Google's only product (sans quotes) was your content. In essence, they were indexing our content, adding a few ads to it or the index it was in, and giving it back to us. There was no physical medium, no need to keep content fresh- we did that for them. Essentially, they were able to sell to their advertisers a medium that is always fresh. Essentially, they sold their advertisers the Internet (and they weren't the first to do so).

Along comes Adsense, where they opened up their advertising model to not only include ads on the search results, but also on the content itself. And we're more than happy to jump in to take our slice.

And then Gmail, where they can now sell the largest chunk of the Internet, the part most people use every day. And in a manner that is, as always, in context to ensure high conversion rates.

Google Docs? Google Calendar? All loss-leaders to keep current Gmail products (I'm not going to point out what's the product and what's the medium anymore) from defecting to other all-in-one solutions such as Office, or convert existing Office customers into Google products.

Is this practice evil or wrong? I don't think so. They're providing a service people want - for free - and a service advertisers want. They've found a way to transform themselves from a relatively obscure search engine into one of the largest ad brokers in the world, and all with relatively low overhead.

The newspapers really could stand to learn a thing or two from Google.

I agree. I would also add how is it any less tasteless than having an actor paid millions to play a fictionalized version of a real soldier?

Truth is, movie-goers rarely see a war flick to see the horrors of war. They go to see a familiar star act like a soldier and have their seats rattled by the mortar blasts. If they're good, and with enough luck, the director and writer may actually get their point across to the viewer. And of course, the studios want only to see a return on their investment, so they have to strike a balance between realism and entertainment. Let's face it- nobody would pay to see and experience a movie accurately depicting the TRUE horrors of war, let alone eat overpriced popcorn while doing it. If they would, I'd be very VERY concerned about the state of our society.

The same is true for video games. Storyline is always a good thing, realism is always good as well- but if the game is too realistic in its violence, it actually turns the player off. For example, take almost any FPS- a headshot almost always ends in the head being blown off- even with a relatively weak handgun. Replace that with the more realistic scenario: A hole in the head, blood dripping down the target's face. Not as violent, but much more disturbing.

Or a war situation: a mortar blast hits and everyone dies, or loses health. Maybe some polygonal limbs are detached, and there's a blast of dirt. Either way, you go on and shoot down the guys that did it to you until there's none left. Replace that scene with the more realistic version: Actually having to care about your team mates, rushing over to your friend for the past 4 years to try and push his intestines back in, not so he can live - it's too late for that - but so he can at least die with a shred of dignity. And as your doing this, you see another of your friends face down on the ground, drowning in his own blood. All of this is happening in first person. Would you play that game?

I think it would make me think twice about rushing home from work to score a couple of frags before bed on a Wednesday night. And for that reason I HIGHLY doubt this game is going to portray the *real* horrors of war; it would be financial suicide, a legal minefield, a moral quandary, and a technological revolution.

Our President is distributing copyrighted material to others? Sounds like a case for the RIAA...

Why all the effort to apply DRM to free streaming content? Is it just because the networks think that everything needs to have DRM?

The solution is to stop asking for donations in-game, and gently remind the user that you are donation supported instead. This shouldn't be against the terms. Leave the donation link on your site. I know you say people hardly visit the site (as plug-ins tend to be made available on plug-in sites, where the distributors reaps 100% of the ad revenue). The way around that is an old "trick"- make exclusive content available on the plug-in's site. What that content could be is beyond what I could think up in the short time it took to write this message (I haven't played WoW in over a year), but if your problem is attracting visitors, then you need to tackle the web traffic issue first. One idea (off the top of my head) is if you author a plug-in that offers quest data, make the base plug-in available on the plug-in sites, but the data required for it available only via direct download on your site (this may require some policing of the distributors). If you don't want to make the players jump through hoops for basic functionality, find something you can add as a bonus to the plug-in, and make THAT available only on the site- users still get core functionality, and must visit your website (with donation requests) for more content. Tell the user in your start up message "Thank you for supporting independent plug-in developers [as a wink wink, nudge nudge]. To download [exclusive content here] please visit Quest-Helper.com"

I know it sucks that Blizzard is doing this, but I can see both sides. I hated seeing donation messages every time I logged in, regardless of whether I donated or not. In some cases, overly wordy donation requests blocked out important info in the chat box provided by other plug-ins.

If you'd like to go over some ideas, feel free to contact me off-forum. It's been a while since I've played WoW, but I do remember how much I relied on donation-supported add-ons when I did.

Silly QuantumG, it's obviously not the laws that are causing harm; Law is infallible. It's those pesky citizens that refuse to follow them that are the problem. How dare they have the gall to believe that they know better than the few elected officials that made the laws that govern the masses' every day lives?

I think you missed the joke yourself. It was also pretty subtle.