Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Why two videos? For the love of dog, why?! (Score 1) 48 48

Spreadsheet-based managers say "Average view is 3 minutes".

What use is that statistic? So the average view is 3 minutes. Why does that mean videos shouldn't be over X minutes long?

Is it to stop the staff wasting time shooting and editing videos that are too long? If so, that idea hasn't worked at all, because we've still got 10 minutes of video to go with this article, just pointlessly broken up into two videos.

Comment: Re:As nobody knows how the brain works... (Score 1, Interesting) 53 53

What do you mean, nobody knows how the brain works? Neuroscience has made some progress over the years, you know. We might not know everything (especially once you start getting into the emergence of consciousness) but that doesn't mean no-one knows anything.

In any case, it's entirely possible to be inspired by something while still having little to no idea about how it works.

Comment: By not using CGI (Score 1) 16 16

Ever wonder how they make robots look so awesomely real in movies?

By not overdoing the CGI, that's how. And not using shaky-running cam just because you have motion matching now.

And if you must use CGI, by not allowing it to dictate the shots you film or the lighting you use.

In other news, does Gillian Anderson have a painting hidden in her attic, or what?

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 71 71

i have some bad news about newspaper titles and proper noun for you.

The bad news is that it's a stupid idea and no-one should be doing it. "Everyone else does it" is not a decent justification for continuing the out-dated and pointless tradition of title case headlines. The good news is that more and more people seem to be eschewing it these days.

Putting the names of publications like Wired in italics would also have been a great help in this case, but knowing Slashdot that kind of thing would take six months of behind-the-scenes testing, followed by a day of actual use during which at least eighty cross-scripting vulnerabilities would be discovered because they implemented it with Javascript.

Also, "photogs"? Has management handed down an arbitrary word-length limit to go with the arbitrary video-length limit that means they have to resort to slang?

Comment: Re:Why two videos? For the love of dog, why?! (Score 1) 48 48

Well, apologies for not spotting that. I allowed my automatic assumption that there was no possible good reason for doing this to lead me to not checking the text.

That said, I still can't see any good reason for doing this. "Management-imposed restraints" could mean anything. Does "management" think two 5 minute videos costs less in bandwidth than one 10 minute video?

Was "management" perhaps previously in charge of disposable razor marketing?

Comment: Why two videos? For the love of dog, why?! (Score -1, Offtopic) 48 48

Is there any actual reason you've decided to put TWO videos in this article?

Does the end of part one mark a change in topic? It doesn't seem to from the transcript. In fact, you seem to have cut one of your own questions out, according to the transcript.

One video is already an abominable waste of space. Two is just freakin' stupid unless you've got a good reason. A very good reason.

There are never any bugs you haven't found yet.

Working...