h a l f b a k e r yFewer ducks than estimates indicate.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Before I get into this, I just want to say that Patrick
Moore is not intended to be the only option here. You
can have, for example, Heather Couper, Tom Baker,
Brian May or whoever you want.
Some people like Brian Cox presenting 'Planets' or
other
shows in his inimitable smiley style and
that's fine.
Others are less keen on him. Fortunately we have
oodles of audio and video from a certain other
presenter
of astronomical programmes, namely Patrick Moore. It
oughtn't to be that difficult to take a transcript,
gather
together a relatively huge space-related vocabulary
and
cobble other words together from various phonemes,
autotune them to appropriate intonation and replace
the
spoken part of the audio track with the result. This
could then be made available on whatever medium the
series is available. This could also be done in reverse
for
Brian Cox fans - replace Patrick with Brian in old
recordings.
Beyond this, the presence of Brian Cox in videos could
be overlaid with a CGI figure which could be given
various skins, such as Heather Couper, Brian May and
indeed Patrick Moore, allowing for the complete
replacement of a presenter with another. And with
Brian May, you could actually have an electric guitar
accompanied Queen version of the series, maybe with
Freddie Mercury on vocals.
And just to make it clear, I have nothing against Brian
Cox. He's just an example.
Deepfakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake
Pretty much bakeable, these days... [neutrinos_shadow, Jul 03 2019]
[link]
|
| |
[+]. Brian Cox's voice is like a sack of dead puppies. |
|
| |
// I have nothing against Brian Cox. // |
|
| |
What's wrong with you ? Seek professional help ... |
|
| |
Well I have nothing in favour of him either. |
|
| |
Because certain jealous people don't like Brian
Cox, I think he's brilliant and has achieved much in
making science a popular subject, not totally
populated by baldy old dribbling men in crumpled
suits, who take out their impotent frustrations on
cats etc - or each other in some cases here. So
glad I live in the 'art world'. |
|
| |
// I have nothing against Brian Cox. // |
|
| |
Frankly, the idea of holding anything against Brian's Cock
turns my stomach. |
|
| |
[xen], we're glad of that too. |
|
| |
I think most of Brian Cock's programmes could usefully be
overdubbed by Brian Blessed. |
|
| |
THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL FOR THOSE WITH A HEARING IMPAIRMENT ! |
|
| |
// So glad I live in the 'art world'. // |
|
| |
More an alternate reality, actually ... |
|
| |
Ha. A compliment from 8th. [imagines him now
choking on a cat hair - especially one from its
bum] |
|
| |
[xen], Cox could be swapped in for someone else, and
don't forget I also mentioned Brian May and Heather
Couper. |
|
| |
I would like to watch a version of "Planets" which was about a quarter of the length and contained just the 'content' bits, and missed out the random shots of landscape set to music which the programme-makers use as a 5-second pad between any 'hard' bits, the misleading CGI of rocks in space crashing together (hey, BBC! why not replace all the CGI in 'Planets' with actual NASA images? - some of them are very good, you know), and the shots of Brian Cox sitting on the edge of a volcano, gazing wistfully into the distance with the sun behind him and the screen full of lens flare. |
|
| |
Yes I know what you mean, [hippo], it's rather
padded, and also they seem to be obsessed with shots
of raindrops landing on rocks. |
|
| |
//seem to be obsessed with shots of raindrops landing on rocks// - indeed, and shooting into the sun to create maximum lens flare when Brian Cox is on screen - it's just annoying |
|
| |
Shooting Brian Cox into the sun ... truly, an idea whose time has come. |
|
| |
A fairly modest launcher will be fine, and the capsule won't need life support or, gods help us, communications ... |
|
| |
But in the absence of life support, he will not get to
experience the sizzle. Just a neutral, technical note
there. |
|
| |
The second time I saw Brian Cox on TV, he got an order of
magnitude wrong in the first few seconds. I now forget what it
was, but I'm not a physicist, so it must have been something
fairly glaring. It wasn't a live broadcast either, so, not only was
there a slip (of the kind anyone might make under pressure), but,
much worse, no-one involved in the filming knew or cared that it
was wrong and re-shot that bit. |
|
| |
That's why I'm with [8th] on this one. |
|
| |
That illustrates the problem - there's almost no science programming on television now aimed at anyone with even a basic school-level scientific education. |
|
| |
At least you're OK, tho ... |
|
| |
I think this may be to do with arts and humanities
graduates having too much control over the media,
[hippo], although it also seems to have been dumbed
down and I don't know what that's about exactly. It
also comes up in false balance, e.g. evolution vs
creationism and anthropogenic climate change vs
climate change denial. No real debate there, just a
right side and a wrong one. |
|
| |
We interrupt a perfectly good idea with this bulletin: |
|
| |
Yesterday my wife bought a Kenmore vacuum cleaner. I propose that we start a band named Ken Moore and The Attachments. |
|
| |
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming. |
|
| |
A deepfake of a "discovered video" of some
historical wag predicting a current event "according
to my prophecy" would generate all kinds of
entertainment.
Some otherwise clearly zany figure with enough
recording time would do. |
|
| |
// clearly zany figure with enough recording time // |
|
| |
//anthropogenic climate change vs climate change denial// |
|
| |
Well, there's a bias right there. People who don't believe in
anthropogenic climate change are, in some cases,
expressing legitimate
concerns over the validity of the science and saying that
they're not
sure. Labelling them "deniers" is simply borrowing a label
from - and thereby equating them with - holocaust deniers. |
|
| |
Often, these skeptics are intelligent people open to the
possibility that
they might be wrong; but the warming fundamentalists
neither
entertain nor allow doubts, and do not even accept that
their view
_could_ be disproven. Is it getting warmer? That must be
ACC. Has it
stopped getting warmer for a bit? Well, that's ACC too. Is it
colder?
Drier? Wetter? All of those things are retrospectively
predicted by ACC
theorists. If we slip into another ice-age, it will still be
ACC. |
|
| |
They also repeatedly state that this speed of temperature
change has never happened before in the history of the
planet; yet they neglect to mention that if there *had* been
a similar rise over 50 years, and then a fall over the next 50
years, it would simply not be visible in the long-term
climate record, because things like ice cores and isotope
ratios record averages over centuries of time. So, for all we
know, short-term rises and falls may have happened
thousands of times in the past; we simply don't know. |
|
| |
What I'd like - what would give some credibility back to the
climate
change debate - is if the ACC brigade said "Yes, if X happens
over the
next 15 years, it will show that we're wrong." |
|
| |
That's a fair call, [MB]; the Popper test. My working assumption
is that the current consensus is broadly true, but having some
definite test cases with a definite range of expected results
would do much to restore sanity and good manners to the
conversation. |
|
| |
My best guess from the physics is that it's false. However,
given the consequences of its being true (and my being
wrong), it makes sense to reduce carbon emissions anyway.
If and when it all goes away, we are at least likely to be less
dependent on fossil fuels. |
|
| |
Incidentally, there have been a good number of //definite
test cases with a definite range of expected results//, but
at no point were they claimed to be validations or potential
refutations of ACC. All that happened was that, when the
results didn't match the predictions, the models were
revised to incorporate the results, and new predictions
were made. This is still happening. |
|
| |
+1, with Heinz Wolff also. |
|
| |
This idea heads further towards a world of individual bubbles where computation only gives you what you like and want. Artificial life. |
|
| |