You're right about his acting ability, but the killer for the movie was direction. Portman is a much better actor, but lame script and mediocre director was what really did it in. I suspect if she was more mature at the time she could have pushed back on some of the script and direction choices.
All the hot grits in the world can't save her from that script.
Except the 2 dollars will spiral down, like wages always do when there isn't a minimum.
"ou decide that is too expensive, and replace the employee with an answering machine." well then, raise your rates. If you industry can't handle you raising your rates, well then the answering machine is good enough after all. Meaning the value add of it being a actual human is too low to bother.
We put that 'burden'* on industry because thats where the money is. Maybe we should just tax at 90% all profit earned over a billion dollars? Society and economics ONLY work well together when money is moving.
It's not like that money isn't going to come back to the corporation again. Income is important for industry to grow on the market.
*as if striving for a balances and healthy society is some sort of burden...
unemployment is holding steady at about 23%. By the same methodology, unemployment was 25% during the great depression.
that's incorrect.
Unemployment, BY DEFINITION is the number of people who are out of work, but are looking for work. To twist it like you did is, at best disingenuous.
Do not use unemployment in any way as an overall indicator of people who don't have work; because for that you need to know intent and motivation. You're way has no way to extract out the people who wouldn't be working no matter what the economy is like.
"If the government went back to enforcing a lower work week by removing exempt status for anyone who wasn't actually an owner or a supervisor who hires/fires/gives raises/can control working hours, unemployment would drop enormously and the abuse might stop."
Can I get a job doodles on a pad and get my creative wage check?
Creativity is often fad based. WHat we need is a way to be able to get buy and get nice thing once in a while and work a 3 day week. then a 2 day week, then not at all.
I like that the more AI we do, the more people like you move the definition.
Also, the turing test is useless fro practical AI, becasue specialty AI is far more valuable then AI that's just like a human.
There are many computer systems that make decisions. THey are better in their specialty than humans, but are easily known as computers becasue they can t tell you what the weather is like.
Entire global logistic system make decisions on their own.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in a union(COPPEA), and I do my job, well.
They weren't blacklisted. Stop with your damn conspiracy. IT was a movie in an industry that knows full well beginning actors aren't in the union.
You get your card AFTER you have done some work.
SHe is actually pretty good. The professional, Heat she is really good.
I suspect she has just picked poor scripts in most her roles.
Hey now! Teak has character. That's why it make beautiful furniture.
" Empire Strikes back is jumbled; no real beginning or end."
It's not supposed to. I understand that some people need simple stories wrapped up in a neat package, but don't blame the oive.
Just stick you your sitcom and laugh tracks, let the adults enjoy a story.
Maybe you should learn to enjoy build up and tension and not just pretty lights and explosions?
You're right about his acting ability, but the killer for the movie was direction. Portman is a much better actor, but lame script and mediocre director was what really did it in. I suspect if she was more mature at the time she could have pushed back on some of the script and direction choices.
All the hot grits in the world can't save her from that script.
And that skill is 23 throat punches a minute.
The first set dealt with unknowns in lead roles. The fact that one of them became a megastar is pretty good.
The last three where horrible directed.
Yeah, a 'eager' 125,000 for an entry level position.
Actors are paid too damn much.
Agents don't care if you are good, only that you make money. There are a lot of mediocre actors that make their agents a lot of money.
Then why did you use it as an example?
If the developer is good? yes.
But to become A list, they needed an agent.
except automation is getting to the point where the new job will be automated from the get go.
This is supported by a lot of data.
The easiest to grok is the decrease in jobs, but the increase in GDP. creating more, with less. Easy to look up.
Oh good ol hornwumpus. WHen you argument fails, always falling back on the tried and true ad hom.
"Or do you not understand the concept of "Artificial Intelligence"?"
actually, you don't understand that term.
It doesn't men self aware. YOU can have specialty AIs that make decision in the fields of expertise and that's it.
You might want to move past the 1950's version of AI.
There are Chess AI's that are better then almost everyone on the planet. WHen was the last times chess AI demanded a Union?
" $7.26/hour income to sit and play games."
Thats disingenuous. It's mot like the get 7.26 an hour because they have no option.
Except the 2 dollars will spiral down, like wages always do when there isn't a minimum.
"ou decide that is too expensive, and replace the employee with an answering machine."
well then, raise your rates. If you industry can't handle you raising your rates, well then the answering machine is good enough after all. Meaning the value add of it being a actual human is too low to bother.
We put that 'burden'* on industry because thats where the money is.
Maybe we should just tax at 90% all profit earned over a billion dollars?
Society and economics ONLY work well together when money is moving.
It's not like that money isn't going to come back to the corporation again.
Income is important for industry to grow on the market.
*as if striving for a balances and healthy society is some sort of burden...
So?
ANother use for the free time would be for you to actually learn government economics.
The second assumes that productivity gains will continue without the incentive of paid work.
That would be robots. Automation has no need to be paid work.
unemployment is holding steady at about 23%. By the same methodology, unemployment was 25% during the great depression.
that's incorrect.
Unemployment, BY DEFINITION is the number of people who are out of work, but are looking for work. To twist it like you did is, at best disingenuous.
Do not use unemployment in any way as an overall indicator of people who don't have work; because for that you need to know intent and motivation.
You're way has no way to extract out the people who wouldn't be working no matter what the economy is like.
"If the government went back to enforcing a lower work week by removing exempt status for anyone who wasn't actually an owner or a supervisor who hires/fires/gives raises/can control working hours, unemployment would drop enormously and the abuse might stop."
Absolutely correct.
"..and hate technology."
Please explain how that jives with the last 150 years?
But to the point, since we design them, we can design then not to want those things. And an AI that's just like a human is pretty worthless.
AI does NOT mean 'self aware'.
An AI that specializes in air traffic control will only do air traffic control.
And how much an hour does 'creative' pay?
Can I get a job doodles on a pad and get my creative wage check?
Creativity is often fad based. WHat we need is a way to be able to get buy and get nice thing once in a while and work a 3 day week. then a 2 day week, then not at all.
I like that the more AI we do, the more people like you move the definition.
Also, the turing test is useless fro practical AI, becasue specialty AI is far more valuable then AI that's just like a human.
There are many computer systems that make decisions. THey are better in their specialty than humans, but are easily known as computers becasue they can
t tell you what the weather is like.
Entire global logistic system make decisions on their own.