Robot Rights: pointless OR irrelevant?

Once more: "roboticists" (that's the best name they could come up with?) want to discuss "robot rights" and "robo-healthcare." And, possibly, how robots can be made more integral to the public consciousness, like dinosaurs after "Jurassic Park," so that "roboticists" can get more money to think about fake sci-fi crises that will never happen.

Fortunately, somebody reads this blog:

"'It's poorly informed, poorly supported by science and it is sensationalist,' said Professor Owen Holland of the University of Essex. 'My concern is that we should have an informed debate and it should be an informed debate about the right issues.'"

....

"'I think that concerns about robot rights are just a distraction,' said Professor Winfield.
'The more pressing and serious problem is the extent to which society is prepared to trust autonomous robots and entrust others into the care of autonomous robots.'"

Well said, professors. Unfortunately, the folks in charge of this conversation worship Philip K. Dick. Perhaps "dickiasts" is a better name than "roboticists"? Do morons dream of retarded sheep?

Small Wonder

Small wonder Republicans don't fear Democrats. The left has allowed this Gonzalez shit to go on too long and nobody cares anymore. It's like the Senators thought they could just bring him in and either he would shock the world by telling the truth--thereby becoming the first administration official ever to do that--or else he would resign. Resign because of what, a sense of shame?! Have any of you Democrats been paying attention?!?

YOU have to force the issue! File some goddamn perjury charges!! Otherwise, his fat ass is just going to sit there like a little toad and burp out nonsense at you until you give up. (By the way, don't you think his voice is exactly like the character Meatloaf played in Fight Club?)

Apparently, he cannot be fired or got rid of any other way than by being sent to motherfucking jail--so get on it! He has nothing to say to you, and he's never going to confess! Why is this so difficult to grasp?

There's a queue of Republicans to prosecute, so crush this asshole and move on to the next GOP scumbag.

Through a Glass, Dumbly

People say that The Onion isn't as funny as it used to be, but that shit is coming from the same people who think M & M's were bigger and tasted better when they were kids; or who think women's skirts are getting too short (and cavewomen were naked. What's your point?).

But clearly the old rag has a lot left. This, for example, is the best summation of National Public Radio programming in general, and one "This American Life," in particular, that anybody's ever written.

A long way to go

Graduate student and Mennonite-extraordinaire Michael Goode was today remarking on the fact that there are few places to get a good breakfast in Washington, DC.

To which it was interjected:

"There IS a great breakfast place in DC; it's right outside the Georgetown University department of philosophy! You know...'GWF Bagel's'?"

Hi-fucking-larious. In a completely dorky way, of course.

A-Rod = 73 + 1

Alex Rodriguez, whom some NY pundits and otherwise douchebags have been ripping on for years, now has 14 homeruns in the baseball season's first month. For the record, this is the most ever, tied with Albert Pujols, the other greatest hitter in the sport.

You might say, "who gives one crippled faggot's butt plug for the American League?" and you'd be right, except what if: A-Rod hits 74 homeruns this year?

Barry Steroids is only 15 HR from Hank Aaron--Hank "Motherfucking Legendary I-Played-The-Game-The-Right-Way-You-Human-Growth-Hormone-Snorting-Retard-Asshole-Dickface-Shitbag" Aaron. Bonds will definitely "break the record" (in the same way that someone who is a completely dishonest, cheating, lying, scumbag can be said to have accomplished something) this season.

And, it is my fervent wish--despite the fact that he is technically contractually bound to the NY Yankees, the soulless void of sports--that Alex Rodriguez hit 74 homeruns so we can finally cleanse the smegma known as Barroid Bonds from our collective baseball consciousness.

That'd be a wicked pisser, eh?

Sports Dump

Tim Duncan thinks an NBA referee has a vendetta against him.

Well, shit. Welcome to the NBA, Tim. You may have noticed some strange things about the league, like the fact that there are no rules anymore. Or, perhaps it stands out to you that often the announcers will declare the winner before the game even starts--which can be figured by simply choosing the team with the most marketable stars and assuming that the referees will not do anything to impede said stars from scoring 30-40 points. That includes not calling them for fouls, calling nonexistent fouls against the other team, not calling travelling, and whatever else will make young, black men keep pouring cash into the NBA's coffers.

Take Kobe Bryant: he raped that girl in Colorado. He is now off-limits as far as national advertising goes for the NBA. But, he scores 50 points a game (is it bad coaching? No. What does "coaching" have to do with pro basketball?). Referees won't dare to call anything on him, and they'll let him take 7 or 8 steps without dribbling, because the more 50-point games Kobe has, the more thugs tune into the broadcasts, buy Kobe gear, pay to attend AAU summer camps and throw up 41 shots a game, like Kobe.

Also, I strongly suspect that most young males in this country don't think there was anything wrong with Bryant forcibly sodomizing that woman. The NBA marketing geniuses, I'm sure, are subtly playing on that and reaping the rewards (well, and my eternal hatred, but they don't care about me).

Skeptics might say that Duncan is a star, and so he shouldn't be the target of any "vendetta" by a ref. Well, Tim Duncan is widely regarded as "boring," in the same way that Tom Brady and Derek Jeter are "boring." Duncan doesn't have a rap album. He doesn't have a trophy wife and a mistress and sit them next to each other at Spurs games. He doesn't have any bodyguards who shoot people. In short, he is not part of the lifestyle of which the NBA is very much trying to make itself an irreplaceable part. That is, a young, urban, fantasy wet-dream lifestyle.

Unfortunately, the NBA has--at least, for my whole life--followed scripts. It's as scripted as any moneymaking pageant: you have to have storylines, dammit, or the retarded sheep at home will flip to "The Search for the Next Pussycat Doll" (seriously, that's the title marketing came up with??)!

So, in the 80's it was Magic vs. Larry, and so every goddamn year we had to see the Celtics and Lakers go at it in supremely "who cares?" fashion and somebody would win and then it would set up the "showdown" of the next season and it was a vicious circle.

Then, the Detroit Pistons, the punk rockers of basketball, created (or, perhaps, were created by the league?) their own "fuck the rules!"-style of basketball and fans loved it (or hated it. Same thing). Like all punks, they were incestuously involved with the powers-that-be and the Pistons were handed two championships while the NBA raked in the suckers' money for a thoroughly watered-down product.

1991. Michael Jeffrey Motherfucking Jordan. Bitches. And all of a sudden...Detroit who? I saw Isaiahaiash Thomas (his mom couldn't spell, why should I?) on TV the other day and he was STILL crying like a little girl about how the NBA "turned" on him and took away the Pistons' glory and handed it all to Jordan. And that's pretty much how it went. Now, there was a string attached: the Bulls still got fucked by the refs a few times in every series, just to make sure the advertisers got their money's worth. In 6 Finals, the Bulls never swept, despite playing such mightily inferior teams as: the Phoenix Suns, the Kareem-less Lakers, the Seattle Supersonics (ooh, Hersey Hawkins!), and the Utah Jizz. The Jizz had a white point guard and ran the pick-and-roll as a first option, for Christ's sakes!

I don't remember where this was all going--oh yeah! The vendetta. Look, Duncan: the refs have been the NBA's tools for years, going to games and basically directing the script on-the-fly. So yeah, now one of them decides he's actually very important to the game (and why not? He knows beforehand and picks the winners most nights!!), and he doesn't like you.

Congratulations: you've just given them another storyline!

Let the Ritual Suicides Commence!

Apple admits its operating system has security flaws; 1% of Americans die as result of having heads shoved too far up own asses.

I'm all for the "little guy," except that Apple isn't. Isn't a "little guy," except in comparison to the world's largest computer company, and isn't "all for the little guy," either. Apple is for the arrogant prick who needs to spend twice as much for the same level of service just so he can tell everybody how "intuitve" it all is. You try finding any system utilities on OS X if you're used to Windows! The Mac way makes no sense! Furthermore, because Apple markets itself on the lie that it's invulnerable to viruses, etc., it doesn't point the user to any kind of protective software, maintenance software, or the like.

This is the age of the disposable computer. You pay $600, you get a laptop, you use it, when it no longer works, you get another one.

Or, you drop $1200 for a basic Mac, you use it, it breaks, you fix it, it runs slow, then slower, then slower, then it's incompatible (still! In 2000-fucking-7!!) with PC video games, then it breaks again, then you have to fix it because you don't have $1200 to start over.

Grownups are back, in charge

...or so says the New York Times.

The problem is, the grownups are complete and utter shit-for-brains retarded.

Letter to the editor (from the Cato Institute!):

"David Leonhardt’s review of Brian Doherty’s “Radicals for Capitalism” ( April 1) was very economical with the truth, claiming that the Cato Institute is “struggling to persuade people that global warming — the archetypal free-market failure — is a hoax.”

In fact, the climatologist Pat Michaels, a scholar at Cato and at the University of Virginia, acknowledges that the earth is warming and that human activity is partly responsible, but he maintains the warming is almost certainly not going to be as disastrous as has been argued by some."

Article about anti-Gore film:

“I don’t know how much of the enemy we have here tonight,” said a smiling Mr. Hayward, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, based in Washington. “San Francisco is usually a target-rich environment.”

...“I agree that we’re warming,” he told a reporter, “and I agree that we’re playing a role in it. What I disagree with is (Gore's) overall pessimism.”

So there you have it, world. Rather than sticking to the tactic that ain't working ("la la la laaaa, I can't heaaaaaaar yoooooouuu!!!! Nyah, nyah!!"), conservatives have opted to go back to the old saw that supposedly helped elect the polluters' best friend, GW Bush: we're grownups and we'll handle it from here!

See, they hear you, man. They know it's getting hotter. But just rest your pretty little head, because they'll make it all better. Somehow. By acknowledging the problem but not the consequences.

Very mature. You're killing us all, you fucktards.

The Kids are All Right

Well, except for the "Mormon Republican" thing.

Protests at BYU over planned Cheney visit.

But this is the funniest thing anyone has unintentionally said in a while:

“The problem is this is a morally dubious man,” said Andrew Christensen, a 22-year-old Republican from Salt Lake City. “It’s challenging the morality and integrity of this institution.”

Hey, Andrew:

Brigham Young dedicated his life to the teachings of a crazy man, Joseph Smith, who thought God revealed his word through golden plates that could only be read with your face buried in a hat while wearing "magic" spectacles.

I enjoy these two skeptical passages from an online article, "Mormonism: Anatomy of a Colossal Fraud":

When the first "translations" by Smith were lost and he couldn't reproduce them:

"At first Smith was lost, and claimed the gift of translation had been taken away from him for the sin of not protecting the manuscript. But he eventually resolved the problem as best he could. He claimed, in another one of his frequent "revelations," that he'd been instructed not to retranslate the plates he'd already worked on. These were the plates of Lehi. Some of the yet untranslated plates had an account of the same history by Nephi. Thus he could retell the story without worrying about it being identical.

Smith suggested that the "stolen" manuscript, should it ever turn up, would prove to be altered rather than being actually divergent, in an attempt to make him look like a fraud. Smith switched scribes (new man, Oliver Cowdery), and continued.

Meanwhile, Martin Harris obtained a handwritten copy of text written in the "reformed Egyptian caractors" and took it to one of America's leading experts in antiquities, Charles Anthon of Columbia University. It was a "singular medley" of Greek and Hebrew characters copied from a dictionary. along with inverted Roman letters, stars, and half moons. Anthon told him the text contained "anything else but Egyptian characters," and that he thought someone was trying to perpetrate a hoax.

Harris, however, concluded that this only proved Smith was a better translator than the noted academic, and must be working under Divine impulse. He returned claiming that Anthon had originally certified the translation, but withdrew it when informed it was for religious purposes. Anthon vehemently denied approving the translation, and is considered a liar by Mormons to this day."

And this charming bit about the fates of the first 3 people to "see" the golden plates, before God changed his mind and added, oh, let's say 8 more:

"Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated in 1838 after accusing Joseph Smith of adultery. He'd also come to believe that the translation was entirely Joseph Smith's work, and not God's. (Furthermore, the angelic voice he'd heard at his baptism, on retrospect, sounded a lot like a certain Sidney Rigdon.) David Whitmer was also excommunicated and Martin Harris left the faith. But the testimony of all three men is still reprinted in every Book of Mormon, attesting to the existence of the golden plates they'd never actually seen. And despite Smith's "revelation" that the vision would be granted to "three and no more," eight witnesses were later added, and their testimony is printed below that of the original three."

Anyway, the point is, Andrew Christensen of Salt Lake City, who you callin' "morally dubious"? WHAT "integrity," exactly, do you think BYU has?

And by the way, Brigham Young ran Utah as an autocrat for most of its early history including exiling unorthodox Mormons into the desert, preying upon native populations, defying the authority of the federal government in judicial and military matters, and overseeing the murder of numerous outsiders passing through "his" territory.

He also had over 50 wives.

"Morally dubious," indeed. Republicans are so fucking stupid.

Spring is the Winter of our Discontent

9 AM, April 11, 2007

4.11.07

Never Forget.

Questions that need looking into

Do hockey players feel like they're moving in slow-motion when they're walking in shoes?

Don't you have anything better to do?

The Robot Bill of Rights is coming. It's based, if you believe the reports, upon Isaac Asimov's works, a Steven Spielberg film ("A.I."), and possibly "Blade Runner" or "Lego Star Wars."

Isaac Asimov wrote a pile of books before he croaked--as Dr. Frink has observed, not too many of them were good--about the future and intelligent robots and he even came up with 3 laws to govern the behavior of intelligent machines in his imaginary, made-up, fictitious future that was the setting for his novels of science fiction.

But, in case normal people (who still don't all enjoy human rights, for Christ's sakes) weren't already completely turned off by the massive intelligence deficit at NASA, blundering "modernizers" and their fucking stupid enormous dams and such that displace millions of people and also destroy the Earth at the same time, or other retarded projects that place science for its own sake ahead of human welfare, dorks around the world are now working on a project that has little connection to anything relevant to the improvement of the human condition.

First off, and as you might expect when you think about who's involved in this project, of foremost concern is the prospect that humans could--again, at some theoretical future time that isn't even close to happening in our lifetimes--have sex with robots. Look, I don't care how fancy that Dyson vacuum gets, I prefer human women and there is no shortage of them and some of them will sleep with just about anybody. You, nerds, would know that if you spent more time out and about, and, say, less time reading Isaac Asimov's books. Which are about imaginary events. In an imaginary future. Involving crises that are extremely unlikely to happen.

I know you saw "I, Robot," nerdlinger. Were you too busy imagining yourself in the Will Smith role to notice that the whole thing was twaddle? I mean, it was insultingly stupid! Your cherished "3 Laws of Robotics" were a PLOT DEVICE inserted in a lame attempt to justify a needlessly convoluted story. This is not God's received wisdom; these ideas came from a writer, who wrote these things down in order to sell a story.

From the article: "With artificial intelligence becoming ever more advanced, there is growing concern about how interaction between robots and humans can be regulated. The issue will be addressed at a robotics conference in Rome next week, where scientists will call on the European Commission to set up a robot ethics committee. Critics have dismissed such moves as "technological correctness gone mad."

There is one point, at the very end of the piece, that is sensible: military robots, with independent-targeting functionality, ought to be regulated in some way so they don't kill humans. But--and I don't think anybody has thought of this, yet--robots are man-made. Am I going too fast? See, they are designed to perform tasks. If you think killer robots might be a problem (write this down!): DON'T DESIGN KILLER ROBOTS.

And, since they are programmed to respond to inputs, they don't necessarily have thoughts, feelings, and the like. And here's the point: they probably NEVER WILL. We don't know what makes the human brain produce these things; how the fuck would we make a robot that does?!

"Learning" robots don't "think." They select logical pathways in response to stimuli. You can't really have an irrational robot unless you make one. They perform tasks; they don't "just exist."

My reaction to the contention that it's unethical for humans to build sex robots ("Hobots"? I call "trademark"!) is: what?! People have negative emotional responses to sexual situations because of social conditioning and things like religious upbringing, physical discomfort, social opprobrium. Robots don't experience these things. Unless they are designed to. How is this simple fact being overlooked by scientists who are pushing a Robot Bill of Rights to head off an existential crisis that can't happen unless they create it--even if they could overcome the immense technological obstacles that make truly sentient robots extremely unlikely?(!)

My wife, being more of a policy wonk, had this to say: in the same vein as human cloning, which is now heavily monitored internationally and is all but forbidden in the US, this shock tactic by scientists--preventative measures aimed at phenomena that haven't happened yet and aren't even likely to happen--will doubtless draw regulation.

When my cyborg grandchildren are trying to make an honest buck from Hobots but their space factory (on Jupiter, I'm guessing) is swarming with robotic inspectors, I hope these dorks--or at least, their preserved brains-in-vats--are "happy."

Larger Uniforms Needed

Move over, Tim Spooneybarger. Fuck off, John Van Benschoten. Jimmy Barthmaier? Get bent.

There's a new name in MLB: Henricus Vanden Hurk. My new favorite player--never pitched above single-A and the Florida Marlins are throwing him to the wol...that is, "giving him 2 starts" this week.

Tune in just to see how the team manager "managed" to fit all the letters on the back of the jersey. It's only 10 characters, but you have to have a space. Does he double-space it, and stack the two names, or does he go for the "Spooneybarger rainbow," like the Braves opted to do?

Example (Hey--Spooney played for the Marlins, too!):




If it were me--just saying--I would just stitch "Hurk" on there. And then I would have the PA play "Hurk MAD!!" everytime he took the field.

Come to think of it, it may be worth watching his first start to behold a 6-and-a-half-foot-tall Aryan Superman reduced to tears by a bunch of diminutive Dominicans with quick bats.

Avoidable? Yes. Still wrong.

I have been nagged by some goddamn nagging nagbobs of nagativity about commenting upon bad lefty scrawlings from around the interweb. Specifically, reading namby-pamby blogs and such, and then having the audacity to critique them. The idea seems to be that it's all shit, and it needs no pointing out to be recognized as such. One helpful reader even used the Bill O'Reilly analogy, as in "anybody who goes on the O'Reilly show should expect to experience the height of idiocy!" So, lazy thinking and stupid behavior by the left need not be pointed out, by that reasoning, because OF COURSE it's stupid.

Well, I can't agree. We're never going to get any better until we think about the things we say and do. And my problem with the left's style, as it manifests itself in writing or speech intended for public consumption, is that it assumes the wrong things about the mass audience.

First, leftist speech assumes that "normal people" are innately conservative and horribly stupid. Thus, talking down to them would anger them; so we must attempt to reach them on "their" level. And, being so smart, this will be easy. We just need some work boots, rolled-up sleeves, and small words. How's it hanging, my man? What is it that is up? Rock out with your cock out! ...and so on.

Second, we seem to think that the lumps will really appreciate some kind of analogy. Reagan was supposedly the "master" of common speech, and so we want to do like he did, and use pop culture references to bring high concepts down to the level of folks who can't visualize anything unless it's on TV. Now, Reagan was suffering from a disease that was eating big holes in his brain, and wasn't very bright to begin with, but that doesn't faze us. Goddammit, we want to show the people how motherfucking savvy and connected we are! I've seen the MT...uh, B? MTV? and I've stayed at the Paris Hilton! It doesn't get any more common than that!

This is the crux: people don't want leaders who are "dumb like me." They don't care, and never did, I'm sure, that GW Bush is a "havin' a beer with me" guy--that was the MEDIA'S fascination! Because in that created, phony-as-hell character they made, the elitist media saw it's own fondest wish: to be accepted as the "pal" of the ordinary American, even as it looked down upon, lectured to, and, like Bush, despised him.

If we on the left don't get out of this loop; that is, if we don't stop trying to relate to our homies on da' streets (phrasing that was moldy even when I was a child, by the way), then we'll continue to be a joke to citizens who prefer the whiff of patrician elitism that comes from the Republican Party.

In a word, voters want smart leaders. If they can't get serious, smart leaders, they will accept elitist pricks in a pinch.

But, alas, this showed up in my mailbox yesterday:





The subscription, it turns out, isn't up until December.






People who cite random, fictitious characters to make a point are not to be trusted. Is Bush Ivan Denisovich? Or, is he more like the Very Hungry Caterpillar? If he's most like Voldemort, can we banish him with magic? Are Congressional impeachment proceedings "magical"? Do you even know what reality is, you crazy bitch? Do you know how fucking stupid this is?!?

This woman is a civil rights lawyer for Gitmo detainees. By the way, while you were spinning your pointless, infantile little story about how Bush = fictional villain, your clients lost their appeal at the Supreme Court.

Lie for your life

I'm no fancy, big-city lawyer, but ah do declayah that Monica Goodling, the surprisingly powerful administration flack who inadequately prepared Paul McNulty to testify before Congress--thereby earning her a subpoena for, effectively, suborning perjury--is a fucking genius. Her lawyer is either only a mouthpiece for her Bush-esque reasoning, or else he is a devotee of the Bush school of dissembling, rambling, irrelevant statements.

See, Goodling really, really don't wanna go before Congress because she'd have to tell the truth, or else those mean ol' Democrats would throw her in jail, thus ruining her previously-bright future as a lying, venal, lawbreaking political hack. Orrin Hatch will surely protest too much, but that's how it could go down unless Goodling's refusal to testify, based upon a truly unique and remarkable interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, is accepted by Conyers, et al.

There are basically 2 ways to practice law, and to reason out problems in legal thinking: accept past precedent and argue a matter based upon previous reasoning, or reject past precedent and argue that the reasoning is flawed. The latter requires overwhelming evidence in favor of a different interpretation--the great deterrent to challenging precedent--which in turn requires a mountain of evidence cobbled from other decisions. It's creative destruction: one tears down relevant case law and offers an interpretation based upon parallel decisions, usually finding some greater principle at stake than what strictly relates to the precedent in question.

Once upon a time, with visions of law school dancing in my empty, 18-year-old head, it seemed that there was a third way to practice law: just make stuff up until something worked. I am exonerated: Monica Goodling and her attorney think so, too!

First, 'Nica denied that she had to appear, since "Democrats have already decided wrongdoing occurred," and that alone gave her Fifth Amendment protection. However, after floating that line for about 24 hours, it seemed that not a single legal scholar recognized that as a valid basis for refusing to testify. The Fifth Amendment is a positive protection: it allows you to escape self-incrimination; it does not allow you to forgo the process of exonerating yourself, particularly when you insist publicly, as Goodling has, that you've done nothing wrong.

And therein lies the rub. Ms. Quisling, who has spent the better part of 6 years aiding the fascist takeover of our country, doesn't actually seem to know what her rights are and are not. And that useless flap of skin inside the $2,000 suit? That would be her lawyer, who is even less intelligent than MoGoo. He earns his fee by insisting, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Goodling is shielded because of some combination of the following: Democrats' opinions, her position in the administration, McNulty's memory, her actual innocence.

The idea that MoGoo is innocent is the latest invented basis for invoking the Fifth. This pair just doesn't get it: the right protects the guilty, not the innocent!

From ace attorney for the defense:

"Mr. McNulty's allegation that Ms. Goodling and others caused him to give inaccurate testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is a sufficient predicate for Ms. Goodling's invocation of her Fifth Amendment privilege, regardless of whether Mr. McNulty's allegation is factually correct -- which it is not."

Um, OK. So what you've just declared is that your client has absolutely nothing to fear from testifying. She's innocent of any crime, since McNulty lied to Chuck Schumer about her role preparing his testimony. Furthermore, if you intend to prove--not assert--that McNulty is wrong, then you have to provide evidence--am I moving too fast for you?--in the form of her testimony, so that wrongdoing can be ascertained and a guilty party held accountable. Or don't you believe in finding the truth and clearing your client's good name?

I swear, you Republicans are as bad as journalists with this "I won't tell and you can't make me" stuff. To paraphrase Wilford Brimley in the greatest scene ever written: the Fifth Amendment don't say that, Quisling, and the privilege doesn't exist.