Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Way to miss the mark Amazon. (Score 1) 66

by Jherico (#43506621) Attached to: Amazon Nears Debut of Original TV Shows
There are a bunch of comedies and a bunch of kids shows because Amazon is probably going to start of producing a comedy and a kid's show, because they're both proven genres. Having decided to do so, they produced a bunch of pilots in each genre with the intent of picking one or two of the best results. People keep reacting to these pilots as if they're the first episodes of a set of series Amazon will make, but they're not.

Also, while the networks are overloaded on comedies, they're sadly lacking in stuff that includes the way real human beings talk (i.e. saying fuck) or stuff that can include drug humor, so there's plenty of room for doing stuff that hasn't been seen before.

Comment: Re:Coincidentally I just watched two of the pilots (Score 1) 66

by Jherico (#43506605) Attached to: Amazon Nears Debut of Original TV Shows

Well, suffice to say that spreading their dollars across numerous pilots instead of one single show gets you what you expect: utter trash.

You can't compare the budget with House of Cards with the budget spent on these episodes. Amazon didn't make these pilots as an alternative to spending a lot of money on a single show. They did it as a prelude to spending a bunch of money on one or two shows.

I'm pretty certain Netflix produced a bunch of pilots which were equally as shaky as the Amazon work. The only difference is that those weren't shown to the general public, just focus groups and Netflix execs, and they picked the ones that they thought had the most promise. Many, if not most shows start out with a pilot that isn't nearly as good quality as the finished product, and not all series air a pilot as the first episode.

Your reaction to the pilots is pretty much why pilots don't get shown to the general audience: because most people go in with an expectation built up over years of watching final products.

Comment: Re:To an outside observer he'd never die (Score 1) 412

by Jherico (#43371453) Attached to: How Would an Astronaut Falling Into a Black Hole Die?
This depends on the size of the black hole. The larger the black hole, the smaller the tidal forces at the actual event horizon, in which case you're correct, he just seems to slow down and redshift from an outside observer. However, for a small enough black hole he'll be ripped apart and quite dead long before he reaches the event horizon. If it's small enough to have a hot accretion disk (whether the disk is there or not).

Comment: Re:Sounds Highly Dubious (Score 1) 368

by Jherico (#42986847) Attached to: NASA's Basement Nuclear Reactor
Read it again. It says the nickel becomes copper, which means that the proton isn't ejected from the nucleus. The energy of it and the electron will end up getting distributed as thermal energy. I suppose you might get some beta radiation at the edges if electron escape the nucleus with enough energy, but that's nowhere nearly as dangerous as something like a fast neutron.

Comment: Re:hmm (Score 1) 430

by Jherico (#42365681) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Do Coding Standards Make a Difference?
That's fine, but that means that you can't look at a reasonable diff prior to checkin, unless your diffing tools also do the inverse formatting on checking out the old version to diff against. This means every auto-formatting option has to be deterministic and reversible. It also means your code review tools have to support it. This quickly spirals into an every growing list of requirements that rapidly becomes much more onerous than simply following the fucking standard.

Comment: Re:Learn your tools. (Score 1) 430

by Jherico (#42365665) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Do Coding Standards Make a Difference?
I imagine what the original poster was hoping for was something along the lines of tools that magically converted to and from the 'standard' convention to his local standard so that he can ignore the global standard. Unfortunately this isn't really feasible given the number of items in the typically development toolchain that would have to support this functionality.

Comment: Re:Que the False Narratives (Score 1) 503

by Jherico (#41175167) Attached to: Misunderstanding of Prior Art May Have Led to Apple-Samsung Verdict
You're not countering my point. You're just being an asshole. My examples weren't meant to be illustrative, not definitive. Also, that is a suppressor, not a silencer. There is no gun you can shoot that makes a 'phut' noise and won't draw the attention of everyone in a 20 meter radius.

Yeah, a lot of people have misconceptions, which is often why there are expert witnesses to clarify issues that aren't commonly in the general body of knowledge. However, that doesn't mean that any knowledge not gleaned from an expert witness is forbidden.

Comment: Re:Que the False Narratives (Score 1) 503

by Jherico (#41173591) Attached to: Misunderstanding of Prior Art May Have Led to Apple-Samsung Verdict
You're expected to go into the juror room with your existing body of knowledge, plus the instructions, plus the evidence and present a verdict. The judge didn't clarify stuff because they're not allowed to unilaterally change the wording on the instructions, which have been agreed on by multiple parties. If you and or your jury decided that 'can't consider anything other than the evidence' as meaning a particular thing, well that's up to you and that jury. From http://www.osbar.org/public/jurorhandbook.htm:

If you have special knowledge or information about any of the facts of a particular case , you should not communicate that information to other jurors. In deciding a case jurors are expected to bring to bear all the experience, common sense and common knowledge they possess; but they are not to rely on any private source of information

Emphasis mine

That means you can't use the fact that you happen know the defendant is left handed, or that the company he works for is releasing a new thing next week (because you work for the company too). On the other hand, if you know that guns can't be fired underwater, or that silencers as presented in movies don't actually exist, and it's pertinent to the case, you can fucking well say so. You just can't look stuff up that you don't already know.

Is your job running? You'd better go catch it!

Working...