"Is Sex with Robots Possible?" - Headline from msn.com

(quotes pulled from here)

Thanks MSN, I myself have spent many a lonely night between exhausted sobs that leave me shaking in that oh-so-cliched fetal coil, wondering aloud and sometimes while shaking my fists toward God, "When can I fuck me some robots?"

Artificial intelligence researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands (how cold and lonely must it be there?) ...conjectures that robots will become so human-like in appearance, function and personality that many people will fall in love with them, have sex with them and even marry them.

Sex? Okay, understandable I suppose. Love? Hmm, questionable. But marriage? Why marry them when you can just have such uncomplicated, no-strings-attached sex? Does sanctifying the relationship in the eyes of government and God become important with a robot? Would you want to be legally entitled to leave your possessions to your robot widow/widower? Or does marriage indicate that the relationship would go beyond sex? Would this robot do my laundry? Clip my toenails while I lean back luxuriously in my recliner and watch Nascar? Provide moral support while I attempt advancements at my place of employment?

Here's the quote where I realized Mr. Levy might not be well:

It may sound a little weird, but it isn't. Love and sex with robots are inevitable.

It isn't weird? And it's inevitable? Love? With a robot?


In 2006, Henrik Christensen, founder of the European Robotics Research Network, predicted that people will be having sex with robots within five years, and Levy thinks that's quite likely.

Hmm, I was feeling pretty lonely lately, wondering how long it's gonna be til' these burly ol' arms of mine could spoon with someone again, and uuhhh, looks like it's gonna be five years.


Serious and not so serious questions are raised by this whole robot sex business. I'll make no effort to separate the two. And honestly, seeing as how I can't wrap my mind around this, this entire blog entry is pretty shoddily organized. It's just that this idea seems to be ripe with so many questions, and it makes one reconsider ideas of humanity and love.

What about divorce? Will we have a bevy of used, unwanted robot partners rebuked after "the thrill is gone," frequenting singles bars, making drunken, dancing-on-top-of-the-bar robot asses of themselves and going home with the last person there? Will people even want to be with divorced robots, or will they simply need to be disposed of?


Will we drunk-dial our robot exes?


I did find this next part funny and more revealing of Levy himself than the question of robot sex/love/marriage:

At first, sex with robots might be considered geeky, "but once you have a story like 'I had sex with a robot, and it was great!' appear someplace like Cosmo magazine, I'd expect many people to jump on the bandwagon," Levy said.


Wow, sadly, I can see magazines of the future with headlines like that. Although I don't think geeky is necessarily the correct word choice there. I'd lean more toward, oh I don't know, indicative of a serious personal and social disorder.


Here's something President Eisenhower never coulda thunk:
We must beware the robot-industrial-congressional complex.

That's right. Congress legislating favors for corporate robot interests because they themselves will be entangled in this whole robot romance tomfoolery. If Republican sex scandals involved robots, would they still be as scandalous? Hell, if anything seems "inevitable," it's that in the future a Republican that vehemently castigates robot sex and marriage will be found in a bathroom stall with this thing:




Jesus, maybe this is what O'Reilly and anti-gay marriage folks mean when they say legalizing such marriages is a slippery slope to people marrying animals, marrying toaster ovens, boxes of delicious maple brown sugar mini-wheats, k-y warming gel, etc., all leading to marrying a damn robot.


In regard to the title of the link on msn.com - is sex with robots possible? - isn't the answer obviously yes? I mean, it seems like desperate and/or disturbed people could find a way to fuck just about anything - man, woman, child, animal, mineral or vegetable.


Some robots:

Jesus Christ, this robot saves wounded soldiers from battle! That's hot! What Republican wouldn't reconsider some legislation that would make it legal to honor this troop-honoring piece of hunkmetal?



Hmmm....

Obviously, one couldn't go much beyond second base with this robot. Or is it third? I never really understood the baseball analogy.


This robot's nice and all, but I think we're better off just staying friends.



And of course, what lady or alternative-leaning gentleman could deny a robotic James Spader head? (I'll avoid an obvious joke here)




Other thoughts:

Would you have to do your own maintenance?

That seems difficult. I just want to have sex with the robot, not perform routine maintenance. Then again, this would just provide a great capitalistic opportunity for robot repairmen! Neat! But also, and perhaps I'm veering into cringe-land, but would the robot take the time to, ahem cough cough, clean herself up afterward? That would seem like a sanitary necessity.


Would your robot be true to you? Hell, I'm so lacking in an ability to trust that I'd think my robot was fucking the fridge while I was at work. And in more complex issues, if fidelity is a matter of programming, could a pervert hacker reprogram your robot to cheat on you? If so, would you blame the robot? Would you know?


But back to the issue of love -
Levy argues that psychologists have identified roughly a dozen basic reasons why people fall in love, "and almost all of them could apply to human-robot relationships. For instance, one thing that prompts people to fall in love are similarities in personality and knowledge, and all of this is programmable. Another reason people are more likely to fall in love is if they know the other person likes them, and that's programmable too."

The personality and knowledge thing, I hesitatingly admit, may have some merit. But that last thing - knowing they like you. Wouldn't knowing that they like you because you programmed them that way sort of kill that inexplicable butterfly nonsense and perhaps necessary human drama of not knowing? Programming it to like you just seems, I don't know, to eliminate something important that I can't quite explain. Maybe calling it cold is the simplest way of putting it.

Shit, but maybe the "similarities in personality and knowledge" being programmable is not a reasonable argument either. From what I understand, most people don't really know what they want, and most relationships and love are surprises. So I don't think one could begin to accurately program what they wanted because they don't know what they actually click (for lack of a better term) with anyway. When it comes to personality, I don't know if we do in fact seek similarities. Maybe knowledge and interests, but most relationships consist of two people with quite different personalities. I know I couldn't get along with somebody just like me. It's more of a strange symbiotic and yin and yang thing most of the time, not similarities that create a relationship scenario.

But all this talk of the future is really ridiculous, because tons of realistic love dolls already exist. Is this what you want to wake up to for the rest of your life?


From siliconeworksdolls.com:

Throat on this doll is 8” deep.

Jesus, would someone that gifted in the pants really need to resort to that?

We carry several types of realistic silicone sex dolls as well as doll torsos, breasts only, feet and heads. (silicone doll heads do not come with wig) from different manufacturers.

I can't help but think this is the extreme result of objectifying women (hmm, people in general I suppose, women just more commonly and farther back in our history) and breaking them down into their single body parts, be it from pornography, or even in mainstream advertising and entertainment.

I'll spare you the photo on this next caption:
Click photo to BUY or learn more about the torsos Natalie Petite Personal Companion love doll- Torso with attached head only, no bulky arms or legs. 36 C breasts Realistic and jiggly!

Ha! No bulky arms or legs.

Or bulky little brain with silly little words and thoughts.




But more love...

I'm familiar with the idea that we may not actually fall in love with a person, but rather the idea or image we have inside our brains of that person. We fall in love with a particular feeling or set of feelings that a person gives us, almost like an addiction to a certain behavioral pattern. Thus, when one person attempts or begins to change, or acts in ways outside of our fixed notion (humans are, after all, inclined at most turns to form concrete patterns out of the abstractions of life, usually just to get by) of said person, there are relationship problems.

So, perhaps a robot, forever unchanging and actually programmed to never change, is what some people really need? Still, there is the issue of not knowing what we want or need, and that thus any attempts to create an unchanging version of a romantic, idealized guess would ultimately disappoint us.


What are your thoughts on this?

Heartbreaking Photojournalism and Brilliant Insight

"The press is certainly a business, and in order to survive it must be a successful business. But the right balance must be found between marketing considerations and journalistic responsibility. Society's problems can't be solved until they're identified. On a higher plane, the press is a service industry, and the service it provides is awareness. Every story does not have to sell something. There's also a time to give."

What a wonderful man - James Nachtwey.

This gave me that weird tightening in my throat when I try not to start crying. Perhaps that sentence was cheesy, but watch this and try not to feel something. I assure you, you will fail.

(and yeah yeah, I know there's a BMW ad at the beginning. whatever. it's short. and the photos start around 4 minutes in.)

Michael Bay continues to destroy my childhood with Transformers

DUDES! Let me tell you how fucking excited I am that Transformers is coming out on DVD on October 16!!!! Spring Break! WOO!

OK, enough sarcasm.

Many of you, probably most of you, know of my disgust for Michael Bay's remake of the Transformers Movie. I would give you a brief explanation of why I am still boycotting this movie, but it will just piss me off. Badly.

I was watching TV last night when a commercial advertising the release of the Transformers DVD on October 16 came on. While I pretty much blew it off, I still somewhat listened. Well, I am sure most of you know this, when there is an ad for a movie/DVD there are several pull-quotes praising the film.

One quote that stuck out to me while watching the DVD commercial: "The most original film of the year."



My mind just got fucked.

REALLY?!?!?!? FUCKING REALLY?!?!?!?

"Transformers is the most original film of the year"?!? I really want what this guy was smoking.

To say Transformers (the 2007 remake) is an original film is like... saying we won the war in Iraq (And proudly displaying a large banner reading "Mission Accomplished"). We haven't (and probably won't); and the 2007 remake of the Transformers Movie is NOT a remake.

Seriously. There was a cartoon series and then a animated movie back in 1986 (around 1986, I think it was made it '85 but released in '86). There have been comics. Action figures. Clothes (yeah, I have Transformers underwear when I was little). Hell, I think there was a cereal too. All of this occurred before this "live-action" remake.


But it is true, the DVD comes out on October 16. Join me as I venture to Best Buy (or anywhere else DVDs are sold) to NOT get a copy of this movie.

Ix-Nay on the Ucking-Fay

Yesterday my mom came in my room with an unusually serious expression and said, "Josh, we need to talk about something." Naturally, I became a little concerned, not really a matter of a guilty conscience, but just nervous about something potentially dreadful of which I was not previously aware. I asked, "About what?" to which she classically replied, "I want you to wait 'til you're married to have sex."

After a brief moment of silence where one of my eyebrows probably shot above my hairline, we both had a good laugh. She then told me she had seen this commercial:





Dude, when I was the age of most of these kids, I was still giggling at sexually-posed action figures.

Then again, that's not really different from now.

But on a more serious point, the most recent federal report on abstinence-only programs reveals they've had “no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence.”

I'm so glad our tax dollars are funding programs that don't actually work, but that make conservatives (who are probably too prudish to ever actually follow the advice of this commercial) feel better.

new car...new insurance...I feel the dirty sensations of adulthood

So, I got a new car today. A Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo Rocky Mountain Edition. Don't really care about the Rocky Mountain Edition, but it had everything else I wanted. So, thats what I got.

I am pretty stoked. It is finally setting in that I got a new car. It was pretty sad cleaning out my old car. As much as I hated all the problems I was having with my old car, I am going to miss it. I can't drive the Jeep like I did my BMW. I mean I took some curves at close to 60 mph and it was awesome. I didn't have to really slow down going into turns and the acceleration was amazing...even with all the problems its had.

On the flip side, with the Jeep I will be able to go places I could not before. I can finally drive down rough dirt roads to get to take a picture I want. I don't know how much more stuff I can fit in the Jeep vs the BMW. Honestly, the cargo space looks about the same, just the Jeep is higher up.

But yeah, I am pretty happy with it. I am sure I will take some pictures within the next day or two and post them...just because taking pictures is what I do and I have something to take pictures of.

I need to get used to driving an SUV. Riding up higher is something I am not used to. Also, I need to get used to parking it. I know it wont be too hard, just driving sedans since I was 16, a Jeep is definitely a change. Granted, my dad tought me how to drive in his Jeep...so its kind of fitting that my first vehicle I buy is a Jeep. (I bought my first car, but it was from my dad, so I don't count that.) I even drove out to where my dad took me to learn driving.

BUT...now that I have a new car, I also have new car payments. And insurance payments.

I need to start looking for a second means of income. Actually, I need to get one, not just look. I also don't know how this will affect my plans on leaving Lubbock anytime soon. As much as I am ready to leave, with having a car payment and loan payment plus credit card payments...knowing I will be getting a paycheck every month is pretty comforting.

So yeah, if anyone knows of somewhere that is hiring. PLEASE LET ME KNOW!!!

OR...better yet...if you know a way I can make extra money without having to get a real job, let me know.

I'm Rapidly Approaching Outrage Fatigue - Blackwater Balderdash

An FBI group is headed to Baghdad to investigate the alleged murder of Iraqi civilians by employees of private security firm Blackwater. While there, they will be protected and escorted by... (get another pair of pants handy, as you may shit your current ones) Blackwater security firm.

From NYDailyNews:

Half a dozen FBI criminal investigators based in Washington are scheduled to travel to Iraq to gather evidence and interview witnesses about a Sept. 16 shooting spree that left at least 11 Iraqi civilians dead.

The agents plan to interview witnesses within the relative safety of the fortified Green Zone, but they will be transported outside the compound by Blackwater armored convoys, a source briefed on the FBI mission said.

"What happens when the FBI team decides to go visit the crime scene? Blackwater is going to have to take them there," the senior U.S. official told The News.

As beholden as the United States has become to private security contractors, I wouldn't be surprised if they were guarded by agents of such an organization. But the same one? Really? What were the dudes at Dyncorp doing?


To add to the already boggled mind, CNN reports:

The Bush administration said Wednesday it opposes a bill that would bring private military contractors overseas under U.S. law, warning it would have "unintended and intolerable consequences" for national security.

Keep playing the shit out of that fear card fuckwits.

The bill would state that contractors working for the U.S. government overseas are subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which allows American courts to prosecute crimes committed in a war zone overseas.

Blackwater, the best-known security contracting firm working in Iraq, said its guards responded properly to an attack on a U.S. Embassy convoy September 16. But Iraqi authorities said Blackwater contractors fired indiscriminately at civilians, killing as many as 20 at two scenes in western Baghdad.


But what say can Iraqi authorities possibly have in their own country?


Under an order laid down by the U.S. occupation government in Iraq, U.S. contractors can't be prosecuted under Iraqi law.

I continue to see flagrant hypocrisy in the administration's desire for the Iraqi government and its citizens to become an empowered, self-governing nation, while simultaneously refusing to allow them any say in the operations of our profit-driven, private security firms.

It's an obvious contradiction, where rhetoric clashes with true motives - private contracts for corporate interests, and money, money, money.

As usual, the only person making any sense is California Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman, who said:

...the U.S. reliance on private security firms in Iraq "is backfiring" by creating resentment of the contractors among Iraqis.

The only thing he forgot to explain is how this resentment is then generalized to all American forces in Iraq. That's been the obvious danger this entire time with the use of mercenaries. Private security firms can behave without consequence for themselves, but our own military bears the brunt of the accrued resentment.

Just Something that CNN Failed to Mention

From cnn.com:

The company that syndicates Rush Limbaugh's radio program defended the talk-show host Wednesday over his controversial "phony soldiers" remark, saying it's "unfair" to assume the comment was directed at combat troops opposing the Iraq war.

Mark Mays, CEO of Clear Channel Communications Inc., wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, saying, "Over the years Mr. Limbaugh has repeatedly praised the dedication and valor of our brave men and women in uniform.

"Given Mr. Limbaugh's history of support for our soldiers, it would be unfair for me to assume his statements were intended to personally indict combat soldiers simply because they didn't share his own beliefs regarding the war in Iraq."

What they failed to mention, something I have yet to forget from a 2004 Rolling Stone article on Clear Channel's near omnipresence, was the relationship Mark's father Lowry had with our current president:

Critics say the company also has a political agenda, given Clear Channel executives' close ties to George W. Bush...

Clear Channel communications resides in a green-glassed sprawling office complex in San Antonio. Company founder Lowry Mays is an ex-Air Force officer and a Texas Republican whom George W. Bush appointed to a state technology council when he was governor.


And the son continues to suckle from the right-wing teat...or wait, is my metaphor mixed up? Is he the corporate teat nursing the right-wing idealogues?

Either way, Mark Mays, CEO of one of the worst corporations in America, is hardly an objective man.

And on another note, why would a man interested only in making money for his shareholders have any interest in slamming one of his biggest moneymakers, no matter how despicably and sensationally he gains those ratings?