I'm not making that argument. Let's say the technology is perfect and produces a result exactly like the actor's. It still won't matter, because people want to go see a movie starring _insert_celebrity_, not some robot. To use the celebrity's name in any promotional material, you'll need to pay the celebrity (or the celebrity's estate). So this is no threat to celebrities, because they will get paid ether to do the actual voice work, or to have their name associated with the film.
Only if property law takes a huge swing such that resources and land are defined as "free". It's not like you can make solar panels without the involvement of pretty much every other industry, so you'll be extracting a lot of raw materials from someone's land, moving it across someone's territory, and then using someones territory to place your panels and run your wire.
Exactly - but would Robin Williams fans go to see Aladdin if it was just an un-advertised sound-alike? You'd probably even have the opposite reaction. It's the name and star power of Robin Williams* that drove that casting decision.
* William's raw talent was evident in the movie and it's success, but I doubt it drove the casting more so than his existing star power. Even if I'm wrong about this movie, there simply aren't examples of high-grossing cartoons staring only otherwise-unknown voice actors. They always have on-screen actors in the starring role(s).
I'm not saying that they won't be able to use a rip off of John Wayne's voice... they can do that right now with human impressionists.
I'm saying that cartoons today use already-famous on-screen actors as big names on the marquee - not for their voices. This won't change. If they want to use a John Wayne sound-alike (computer generated or otherwise), they can go right ahead. If they want to SAY they are using a John Wayne sound-alike for marketing reasons, they'll need to pay the estate some money.
The vocal performance and personality of the actor shapes and defines the animation of the character.
No argument from me - but there is no logical reason that the best voice actors in the world also happen to be people who have the qualities necessary to be an on-screen star. The use of so many screen actors for voice-only roles implies existing star power as the prime motivation.
I don't think so. Stars still have legal rights over their likeness. I think you'd have a lot of trouble getting away with saying something like "Starring... a voice like Paul Rudd's, a voice like Carrie Fisher's, etc...".
Star power isn't going anywhere. There's really no logical reason that famous film stars are also billed prominently for animation, and yet that's what we have.
Corporations - or at least, the limited liability aspect - are antithetic to libertarian thinking. You cannot have individual responsibility, and all of the systems in place to make sure that you are held accountable for your actions sail out the window when you have immunity. In addition, while many libertarians take the view that "property" is an inherent right, this is not universal. Personally, I align with libertarians pretty closely in the political realm, but find that the ideology is pretty mismatched with the commercial/economic realm in many important ways.
I'd argue that the restriction is energy, not labor. A seawater-to-gold facility would require some labor to be sure, but the bulk of the cost would be energy.
I agree with you, but penalizing people for getting married is going to have a pretty predictable result. Especially when it is a recurring $7000 for people who are pre-selected to make less than $17,000 per year!
Having now read TFA (I know, I know...) I realize that this is not universal basic income at all. They are cherry-picking poor people, and they are reducing the subsidy based on money the recipients earn. While I'm still happy that they are playing around with this, I really wish they'd keep the "rules" simple and just randomly throw various amounts of money at random people, then study the effect. I think they are getting a little ahead of themselves.
Agreed, but when the water comes up, they'll have to deal with it - either through construction or relocation or both.
Let's say that tomorrow, scientists make a huge discovery that completely changes the climate models. It turns out that not only is mankind not responsible for climate change, but it is indeed fluctuations in the sun. How does this change our mitigation efforts? The answer is that it does not. Either way, we have to respond to higher water levels and a warming climate.
That kind of thing has been around forever - in the early 90s my college ran their computer lab with dual partitions on the hard drives: a write protected system partition and a user partition that was cleared every night.
But Chromebooks are still easier to manage - if they turn on at all, you know they are good to go. No set up at all, no drive images, nothing - just turn it on and go.
The climate will reach a point-of-no-return where no amount of mitigation will ever fix it. Ever.
I really don't know what you mean. The coastline will change, people will have to be moved or the coastline will have to be fortified. That is mitigation. Current farmland will become marginal and marginal farmland will become fertile. Moving stuff around is mitigation. It's not even really a choice - mitigation just has to happen so that people can go on living.
Yes, sucking resources away from other users is one reason.
Others: - Your feature or changes almost certainly comes with added complexity and/or bugs. People don't like that. - People resist change just as a matter of being human. Any change needs to overcome this "static friction". - Admitting that you have a better way is also an admission that they've been doing it wrong (or less efficiently) the whole time. People don't like to do admit they are wrong.
worst case extreme if climate change is real: massive amounts of people die, you get to watch those you love perish around you due to rising tides destroying any pitiful leevees. those that survive have trouble feeding themselves.
This is bizarre. Even the most pessimistic models have the climate warming a few degrees over the course of a century. This picture you paint of a disaster movie is absurd. People will be displaced, some places will become uninhabitable, others will become habitable. It's not like the ocean will come rushing in and kill everyone in Miami. We aren't looking at "Waterworld". Levees will indeed fail, and the decision will need to be made to either abandon the area or build larger levees. People will be forced to deal with climate change whether or not they believe it is man-made.
Right on! I'm not even sure what oceanographers do. They just use tax money to go out on their big science yachts and play with remote control submersibles. I wish they'd do something useful like find oil or sea coal.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not making that argument. Let's say the technology is perfect and produces a result exactly like the actor's. It still won't matter, because people want to go see a movie starring _insert_celebrity_, not some robot. To use the celebrity's name in any promotional material, you'll need to pay the celebrity (or the celebrity's estate). So this is no threat to celebrities, because they will get paid ether to do the actual voice work, or to have their name associated with the film.
I used a dead star on purpose to illustrate that even resurrecting dead star voices won't be possible without paying the estate.
Only if property law takes a huge swing such that resources and land are defined as "free". It's not like you can make solar panels without the involvement of pretty much every other industry, so you'll be extracting a lot of raw materials from someone's land, moving it across someone's territory, and then using someones territory to place your panels and run your wire.
Exactly - but would Robin Williams fans go to see Aladdin if it was just an un-advertised sound-alike? You'd probably even have the opposite reaction. It's the name and star power of Robin Williams* that drove that casting decision.
* William's raw talent was evident in the movie and it's success, but I doubt it drove the casting more so than his existing star power. Even if I'm wrong about this movie, there simply aren't examples of high-grossing cartoons staring only otherwise-unknown voice actors. They always have on-screen actors in the starring role(s).
You are refuting a point that I didn't make.
I'm not saying that they won't be able to use a rip off of John Wayne's voice... they can do that right now with human impressionists.
I'm saying that cartoons today use already-famous on-screen actors as big names on the marquee - not for their voices. This won't change. If they want to use a John Wayne sound-alike (computer generated or otherwise), they can go right ahead. If they want to SAY they are using a John Wayne sound-alike for marketing reasons, they'll need to pay the estate some money.
The vocal performance and personality of the actor shapes and defines the animation of the character.
No argument from me - but there is no logical reason that the best voice actors in the world also happen to be people who have the qualities necessary to be an on-screen star. The use of so many screen actors for voice-only roles implies existing star power as the prime motivation.
I don't think so. Stars still have legal rights over their likeness. I think you'd have a lot of trouble getting away with saying something like "Starring... a voice like Paul Rudd's, a voice like Carrie Fisher's, etc...".
Star power isn't going anywhere. There's really no logical reason that famous film stars are also billed prominently for animation, and yet that's what we have.
The payment decreases by 50% of your income, so I guess they are budgeting for these people to make at least some money while receiving assistance.
Corporations - or at least, the limited liability aspect - are antithetic to libertarian thinking. You cannot have individual responsibility, and all of the systems in place to make sure that you are held accountable for your actions sail out the window when you have immunity. In addition, while many libertarians take the view that "property" is an inherent right, this is not universal. Personally, I align with libertarians pretty closely in the political realm, but find that the ideology is pretty mismatched with the commercial/economic realm in many important ways.
I'd argue that the restriction is energy, not labor. A seawater-to-gold facility would require some labor to be sure, but the bulk of the cost would be energy.
I agree with you, but penalizing people for getting married is going to have a pretty predictable result. Especially when it is a recurring $7000 for people who are pre-selected to make less than $17,000 per year!
Having now read TFA (I know, I know...) I realize that this is not universal basic income at all. They are cherry-picking poor people, and they are reducing the subsidy based on money the recipients earn. While I'm still happy that they are playing around with this, I really wish they'd keep the "rules" simple and just randomly throw various amounts of money at random people, then study the effect. I think they are getting a little ahead of themselves.
I am pretty sure that penalizing people for becoming a "family" will have consequences.
With that said, if they do this pilot correctly it will yield very interesting data.
I remember that form! I'm not sure what was more annoying, scrolling past the form at 9600 baud or the post that provoked the response.
Agreed, but when the water comes up, they'll have to deal with it - either through construction or relocation or both.
Let's say that tomorrow, scientists make a huge discovery that completely changes the climate models. It turns out that not only is mankind not responsible for climate change, but it is indeed fluctuations in the sun. How does this change our mitigation efforts? The answer is that it does not. Either way, we have to respond to higher water levels and a warming climate.
That kind of thing has been around forever - in the early 90s my college ran their computer lab with dual partitions on the hard drives: a write protected system partition and a user partition that was cleared every night.
But Chromebooks are still easier to manage - if they turn on at all, you know they are good to go. No set up at all, no drive images, nothing - just turn it on and go.
The climate will reach a point-of-no-return where no amount of mitigation will ever fix it. Ever.
I really don't know what you mean. The coastline will change, people will have to be moved or the coastline will have to be fortified. That is mitigation. Current farmland will become marginal and marginal farmland will become fertile. Moving stuff around is mitigation. It's not even really a choice - mitigation just has to happen so that people can go on living.
Tell her I get a cut of any sea coal she finds.
Sooooo.... don't buy it.
Yes, sucking resources away from other users is one reason.
Others:
- Your feature or changes almost certainly comes with added complexity and/or bugs. People don't like that.
- People resist change just as a matter of being human. Any change needs to overcome this "static friction".
- Admitting that you have a better way is also an admission that they've been doing it wrong (or less efficiently) the whole time. People don't like to do admit they are wrong.
Yeah, schools are adopting Chromebooks en masse because of their superior DRM.
worst case extreme if climate change is real: massive amounts of people die, you get to watch those you love perish around you due to rising tides destroying any pitiful leevees. those that survive have trouble feeding themselves.
This is bizarre. Even the most pessimistic models have the climate warming a few degrees over the course of a century. This picture you paint of a disaster movie is absurd. People will be displaced, some places will become uninhabitable, others will become habitable. It's not like the ocean will come rushing in and kill everyone in Miami. We aren't looking at "Waterworld". Levees will indeed fail, and the decision will need to be made to either abandon the area or build larger levees. People will be forced to deal with climate change whether or not they believe it is man-made.
Right on! I'm not even sure what oceanographers do. They just use tax money to go out on their big science yachts and play with remote control submersibles. I wish they'd do something useful like find oil or sea coal.
I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread is joking.
That plastic sinks to the South Pole.