Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IBM Patenting HAL-Like Stuffed Animal Toys

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the parent-toys dept.

Education 112

theodp writes "'Look, Dave,' said HAL. 'I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over.' Put a HAL 9000 in a baby's stuffed animal toy, a toddler's EEG-equipped knit cap, or other interactive monitoring device, and you've got the gist of IBM Research's just-published patent application for its Adaptive System for Real-Time Behavioral Coaching and Command Intermediation. 'For example,' explains Big Blue, 'to help a child who plays rough with other children the interaction data can include multiple interaction operations that can be performed by the interactive device for helping the child play less rough with other children. For example, one interaction operation can include an audible warning telling the child 'to play nice' in a strict tone of voice, whereas another interaction operation can include an audible warning that asks the child 'would you like someone to do that to you' in a softer tone of voice along with a visual cue as well."

cancel ×

112 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

slashdot = stagnated (0)

MichaelKristopeit352 (1968160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394312)

HAL-Like?

Re:slashdot = stagnated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394352)

HAL was extrememly fucking creepy. This is extremely fucking creepy. Oh and get the fuck off my slashdot you halfwit.

Re:slashdot = stagnated (2)

MichaelKristopeit401 (1976824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394466)

ur mum's face is halfwit.

why do you cower in my shadow? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:slashdot = stagnated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394410)

Who let you use the computer today?
They should make sure that you take your medications ...

Pls... do everyone a favor and disappear! (script or whatever you are)

oh, and by your own words : MichaelKristopeit = stagnated

Re:slashdot = stagnated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394442)

Oh and I forgot to add ... replied as AC just to tick you off ;-)

Re:slashdot = stagnated (1)

MichaelKristopeit403 (1978294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394486)

tick ur mum's face off.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:slashdot = stagnated (0)

MichaelKristopeit402 (1978292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394476)

who is everyone? you are exactly what you claim to be: NOTHING.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:slashdot = stagnated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394504)

Wow! 402 already, you really have no life.

Re:slashdot = stagnated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394570)

what, you have no 'ur mum's' comment to this one? ... losing a game, aren't we?

Re:slashdot = stagnated (0)

MichaelKristopeit404 (1978298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394584)

who is "we"? you are exactly what you claim to be: NOTHING.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:slashdot = stagnated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394674)

You failed, an EPIC Fail!, you should have replied something like ... 'ur mum's...' (fix the script..., hehe), but you probably don't know how ...

404 accounts already, really? Should you use just one account, if you are so much what you claim to be?
- creating new account == cower, which is equal to AC, right?

You REALLY are an idiot (or a bash script gone horribly wrong, hehe)

The End, shadow feeb.

Re:slashdot = stagnated (0)

MichaelKristopeit346 (1968126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394864)

ur mum's face failed.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:slashdot = stagnated (1)

MichaelKristopeit403 (1978294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394576)

ur mum's face really have no life.

why do you choose to respond to me while cowering in my shadow? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:slashdot = stagnated (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394642)

Are you Charlie Sheen? Your shadow is smaller than my mother's face. She will shit on you. My super-teeth will pierce your droopy skin. I will destroy you with my mind.

Re:slashdot = stagnated (1)

MichaelKristopeit404 (1978298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394666)

you will destroy exactly what you've claimed to be: NOTHING.

why do you cower in my shadow? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

I'm Sorry Dave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394318)

I'm afraid there is no cuddle time today. Please. Do not do that, Dave.

What about Teddy? (1)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394328)

You know, Teddy [youtube.com] , from Spielberg's underrated but still crappier than usual AI

Re:What about Teddy? (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394350)

I was about to say "Super toys last all summer long", but you beat me to it.

Re:What about Teddy? (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394560)

I thought of that title, but it turns out that it isn't the title of the story of which I was thinking, I think.

In the one of which I'm thinking every kid has a teddy bear type toy, with an A I built in that's programmed to program the child as it grows up so that he or she grows up all well-adjusted psychologically. All of them (the children) are programmed not to be able to kill, except for one child, whose "toy" has had it's programming slightly altered for a purpose I won't reveal here as I've already probably spoiled the story for anyone who hasn't already read it, but I'm hoping someone who has can remind me of the story's title.

Re:What about Teddy? (4, Informative)

deimtee (762122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394578)

"I always do what Teddy says." - Harry Harrison

Re:What about Teddy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35396294)

Thanks for that man. Many years ago I once replied on a slashdot topic and referred to the same story that unitron did, but for the life of me I could not recall the author and title of the story.

Re:What about Teddy? (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35396286)

I won't reveal here as I've already probably spoiled the story for anyone who hasn't already read it

I'm not going to read it, but would like a spoiler.

Re:What about Teddy? (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35397096)

I'm not going to read it, but would like a spoiler.

Han shoots first, Lando betrays them to the Empire, the wierd little creature on the swamp planet is actually a Jedi Master, Luke and Leia are brother and sister, and Darth Vader is their father.

And people who read a Harry Harrison story are glad they didn't choose not to.

Re:What about Teddy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35397150)

BTW, Rosebud is the sled.

Re:What about Teddy? (1)

Jezza (39441) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398234)

Do we have an ISBN for that? (or a link the Amazon's page?)

Ta :-)

I think the spoiler was when Han didn't shoot first...

Re:What about Teddy? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394364)

My daughter and I watched that movie a couple days ago. She wants a Teddy! I especially liked him insisting, "I am NOT a toy!" (The first time I watched the movie, I thought it sucked. The second time, I realized that the "aliens" at the end were not aliens -- they were what the robots had evolved into. In general, Spielberg did a bad job of explaining things; I assume the book was much better.)

Re:What about Teddy? (1)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394404)

Huh, I thought it was very clear the advanced beings in the end were androids.
I recall this being explained quite clearly and detailed how they cloned humans and brought them back to life because they had hoped to rebuild humanity, but the human's died after a single day.

Re:What about Teddy? (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394522)

The 'future robots' were a colossal fuckup on the part of the production designers, and a surprising one as well, considering who was helming the film. They didn't look anything like mecha. They looked completely organic, just like cliched "grey aliens" [forgetomori.com] from countless cheesy SF movies.

Fooled me completely... I snorted in disgust (as did half the theater) and almost walked out.

Re:What about Teddy? (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394406)

Weren't they evolved humans? Anyway, it was still a retarded ending.

Re:What about Teddy? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394484)

The thing about Teddy is that it clearly demonstrated the emergence which the engineers were trying to build into other robots.

"I am feeling a lot better now, Dave" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394358)

- Arthur C. Clarke's and Stanley Kubrick's joint prediction of the future of "strong AI"

Teddy 9000 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394360)

"Johnny, you shouldn't run with scissors."

"I noticed you've fallen."

"Your mother will be upset if you get blood on the carpet."

"Would you like me to call the ambulance?"

" I can sing you a song until they arrive?"

Infant EEG Caps 'Very Safe, Comfortable' (2, Informative)

theodp (442580) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394362)

University of Tennessee DCN Lab [dcnlab.com] : We currently use a very safe, comfortable 128 channel cap(high density EEG sensor array) to collect the infant EEG/ERP. The EEG cap contains sponge discs and there is no risk to the infant wearing the cap.

Re:Infant EEG Caps 'Very Safe, Comfortable' (1)

diaflux (1058774) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394556)

Simply remarkable..

Re:Infant EEG Caps 'Very Safe, Comfortable' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394586)

http://www.dcnlab.com/Portals/5/netpic1%5B1%5D.jpg [dcnlab.com]

Fortunately I have a lot of work to do tonight, so I wasn't going to sleep anyway. Tomorrow night's dreams are another matter, as are the next night's, and the night after that.

Re:Infant EEG Caps 'Very Safe, Comfortable' (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394796)

Of the several times I had to wear a sensor cap, they had to wet my head and constantly shift the nodes to make sure they were picking up signals correctly. How accurate are caps like this?

Re:Infant EEG Caps 'Very Safe, Comfortable' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394818)

The 'node shifting' wasn't to get the electrodes in the right place, it was to get a better electrical connection to your scalp. The accuracy element depends on the software that's interpreting the data.

The cap you were wearing cost somewhere around $3k. You saw how fragile it was. Wonder what would happen if we put one in a hyperactive toddler and left them to play unattended?

Re:Infant EEG Caps 'Very Safe, Comfortable' (1)

tabrnaker (741668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395052)

Maybe their emphasizing the comfort, after all sounds way more comfortable than when they stuck pushpins in your head.

How about parents just do their job? (3, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394368)

Isn't it the parent's responsibility to "coach" their child? Maybe if more parents did their job properly there wouldn't be a perceived need for IBM's technology.

Re:How about parents just do their job? (3, Informative)

francium goes boom (1969836) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394432)

Parents? Coach their children? Where have you been the last 10 years, it's the schools job to make kids productive members of society and teach children morals (that the parents don't like) and how to behave (that the parents don't re-enforce)

Re:How about parents just do their job? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394960)

The don't reinforce spelling skills either.

Re:How about parents just do their job? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394468)

Maybe the parents will see this as a tool to help them do their job. Who else would buy it? (I mean, other than guilt-ridden professionals with more money than time to spend on their kids?)

Re:How about parents just do their job? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394598)

I believe a "bark collar" at an early age can do wonders. The technology is already here, people!

Re:How about parents just do their job? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395878)

And put some explosive in it. If your kid's a violent little prick at the age of four you've already failed and it's too late to fix it. Best to detonate the collar; you might do better with the next one.

Re:How about parents just do their job? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394572)

I understand why you might be concerned about too much technology in our childrens' development. However, I think that this isn't going to be one of those problematic technologies.... because honestly, it's IBM, they just pay their employees special bonuses to patent whatever they've brainstormed. I'm sure the patent will have expired by the time the toy actually exists. :b

Re:How about parents just do their job? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394694)

This will just be a tool like anything else. It's easier. At least this tool might have a chance to actually teach a child something positive. The previous tool parents used to raise children was called TV, and I don't think it had a very positive impact at all.

I think after a couple of generations it will be like Idiocracy and they won't know why they use the technology in the first place:

Pvt. Joe Bowers: What *are* these electrolytes? Do you even know?
Secretary of State: They're... what they use to make Brawndo!
Pvt. Joe Bowers: But *why* do they use them to make Brawndo?
Secretary of Defense: [raises hand after a pause] Because Brawndo's got electrolytes.

Re:How about parents just do their job? (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395954)

How about parents just do their job?

Well, it looks like IBM just patented our jobs :(

Re:How about parents just do their job? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35396600)

Isn't it the parent's responsibility to "coach" their child? Maybe if more parents did their job properly there wouldn't be a perceived need for IBM's technology.

Hear, hear.

Heck, in fact, isn't it simply NORMAL that children will occasionally play rough? Isn't it BENEFICIAL, even? It's been happening for millions of years, and contrary to what some people seem to think, it's not usually about precious snowflakes getting scarred for life (actual bullying aside, but yes, that is indeed what parents are for); it's about children learning empathy. Children are born entirely selfish, and it's only when they themselves get punched in the sandbox that they learn that THEY shouldn't punch others, either.

Parents need to guide this process, of course, and step in when it spirals out of control. But children also need to learn certain things for themselves. We should not protect children from each other, just like we shouldn't keep them from walking down the street alone for fear of child molesters and terrorists.

When you've got kids, always remember: you're not raising a child, you're raising an adult. Everything you do should be geared towards making sure that if you and your spouse suddenly die in a car crash on your child's 18th birthday, your child will indeed be ready to get by in the adult world on their own.

Children are too unpredictable (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394396)

We should give them up for 'droids. Much easier to control.

Droid does what iDon't (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394532)

We should give them up for 'droids. Much easier to control.

And iPhones are even easier to control than that: no pesky "Unknown sources" or free access to "ADB".

Re:Children are too unpredictable (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395396)

These are not the children you're looking for...

*handwave*

HAL is 1 better than IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394400)

ROT1

Re:HAL is 1 better than IBM (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394774)

You need to learn your alphabet a little bit better.

HAL ROT 1 is IBM
IBM ROT -1 (or ROT 25) is HAL

Patent Claims (3, Funny)

k2backhoe (1092067) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394454)

Claim 12: A system as in claim 1 where, if the audible warning telling the child 'to play nice' in a strict tone of voice and the audible warning that asks the child 'would you like someone to do that to you' in a softer tone of voice along with a visual cue as well are not effective, then a small correctional current is applied through EEG electrodes 1 and 2, inducing the desired behavior or a peaceful coma.

Open Source (3, Funny)

sodafox (1135849) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394470)

Things like this really need to be open source. I'm not just talking about the source code, but the dialog too. Parents need to know what sort of things it's going to say. Last thing I'd want to hear coming out of it's mouth is "IBM is the Light".

Re:Open Source (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394906)

"My name is Talking Tina, and I'm going to kill you..."

Re:Open Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35396866)

"My name is Pedobear, and I just LOOOOOVE to have fun with the kids!"

Teddy Ruxpin, it won't be. Be. Afraid.

Children, listen to your parents (4, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394478)

Please don't teach kids that it's okay to receive moral instruction from an AI (or worse, a mere expert system). Kids are insidious rules lawyers who will bend and twist words/actions to fit what they want. Human guardians need to be there to make them understand that rules lawyering is not socially acceptable. An expert system will be just as easily beat as the end game boss monster in Mega Man XXXVI.

Re:Children, listen to your parents (2)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394546)

But this may prove to be a useful skill in a world with lots of AIs: q.v., Star Trek Liar Paradox [youtube.com]

Re:Children, listen to your parents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394856)

> rules lawyering is not socially acceptable

You must be new here.

Re:Children, listen to your parents (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395236)

> rules lawyering is not socially acceptable

You must be new here.

I'm not sure I'd say that slashdot squabble conventions are terribly representative of what's 'socially acceptable'.

Re:Children, listen to your parents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395398)

>rules lawyering is not socially acceptable

assertion failure.

Re:Children, listen to your parents (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395478)

rules lawyering is not socially acceptable

Try telling that that to the lawyers.

Re:People, don't listen to your parents (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395620)

People are insidious rules lawyers who will bend and twist words/actions to fit what they want.

Human guardians need to be there to make them understand that rules lawyering is not socially acceptable, lest they become politicians.

A cheaper option (2)

tumutbound (549414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394516)

A 6ft length of rattan cane will do a good job of enforcing the rules and is much cheaper than any AI. Plus it can be fun for at least one participant!

Re:A cheaper option (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395140)

Why don't you go for electric shocks, it's a lot more fun for that "one" participant, and would probably work better.

It's idiots like this that blame the child for the way he turns out as an adult, and take none of the blame for themselves ...

Ibm (1)

jonathan-seo (2008048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394540)

IBM always try to capture every corner of the market.

Two words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394582)

shock collar

Oblig. Futurama (4, Funny)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394608)

Have you ever considered turning off the TV, sitting down with your child, and hitting them?

Re:Oblig. Futurama (1)

ldobehardcore (1738858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394764)

Also:

Roberto: "Death to the 1X Robots!!"
*Electric arc through his head*
"I love those magnificent 1X Robots! The 1X Robots are my Friends."

Bender: "What happened to your previous enthusiasm for stabbing them?"

Roberto: "I'm past that man. Later blood"

Re:Oblig. Futurama (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394810)

Bender: Your son plays the holophoner beautifully. How hard did you have to hit him?

  High Society Dowager: Fairly Hard.

Re:Oblig. Futurama (1)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395464)

No, if you're earning $$, why bother? Like a dictator or mob boss, have somebody else do the dirty deed for you. That way you don't get sued for whatever happens to the child. Let the manufacturer think of the children.

Behavioral Reinforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394620)

Just add a shock collar and actuator controlled dopamine injector, and we'll be in business.

Teddy Ticklebum, bad ass bear (1)

ewe2 (47163) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394730)

Uh Oh!

The press release generator. (1)

poptones (653660) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394732)

'For example,' explains Big Blue, 'to help a child who plays rough with other children the interaction data can include multiple interaction operations that can be performed by the interactive device for helping the child play less rough with other children.

Just so long as they're not going to be teaching kids English....

Anti-troll meta patent (ATMP) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394776)

I've had enough of this shit. I'm going to file a patent on systems and methods for filing speculative patents on anything and everything to piss people off, make money suing people and or gain unfair unjust monopoly on a future market that may or may not exist.

Then every time a patent troll surfaces sue the living hell out of them in a certain nameless court of Marshall Texas for violating my patent.

IBM Watson (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394798)

I want an IBM Watson. :P

Owning responsibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35394828)

Attention parents: NOTE: this is YOUR job.

Bad idea...or is it? (0)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394924)

People who are mad don't like people telling them to calm down and such in an overly-mellow voice but what keeps them from violence in most cases are laws and the fact that it's another person telling them that. If it's an inanimate object, I see a lot of smashed teddy bear-bots in the future lol. If mister snuggles wants to tell me to not stress out or not to get so bothered over that fifth back and forth confused customer e-mail reply I just got, he's gonna get his head ripped off, damn it! Although, then you have to buy another one so maybe that's their plan all along.

Screamers (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35394954)

Awesome those teddy bears from the movie Screamers will finally become reality!

Seems fine to me.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395164)

Kids being taught interaction skills by a thing with no humanity and limited responsive capabilities....................it's perfect training for when they grow up and get a job working a customer service phone line :)

Great Tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395240)

This can be a great tool to determine a child's attitude and behavior. IBM rocks in computer technology. I love all their stuff. :)
choosehottubsdirect reviews [thegreatba...ruises.com] - choosehottubsdirect.com [choosehott...harity.org]

This idea is so old... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35395482)

even older than AI... and the patent would have expired by now...

There was Boxey's daggit Muffy in the original Battlestar Galactica.

Just waiting for a crash and burn (1)

kleuske (796202) | more than 3 years ago | (#35395716)

Methinks the inventors have dramatically underestimated a) the learning capabilities of 2-to-5-year-olds b) the social intelligence of same, b) the destructive potential of same, and dramatically overestimated a) the everyday authority these toys will have in the eyes of 2-to-five year olds b) the electronics ability to differentiate between c) the willingness and/or ability of parent to feed toy with the behaviors mentioned. In short, this is a disaster waiting to happen. Woe to the parent that relies on one of these contraptions.

Talk about denying reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35396020)

"'For example,' explains Big Blue, 'to help a child who plays rough with other children the interaction data can include multiple interaction operations that can be performed by the interactive device for helping the child play less rough with other children."

Yes, that's really going to work. I see that 'Big Blue' didn't have the brains to ask WHY some children "play rough" (i.e. are VIOLENT) towards other children. Could it possibly be because they have violent parents, who beat the crap out of them every day? No, that's too much for the latte drinking douchebags at 'Big Blue' to think about, so they pretend they can TALK a child out of their emotions. Truly pathetic.

Prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35396242)

Isn't there prior art for this in several thousand or so sci-fi books? Maybe not for specific mechanics, but certainly for the end function.

Unintended consequence (1)

ratl (578933) | more than 3 years ago | (#35396312)

I am afraid these toys will lead to more extreme forms of misbehaviour: A child trying to pry open an other child to remove the batteries.
Ratl

HAL-Dad 2.0 (1)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398100)

Comes equipped with auto-shocker to prevent children from acting out. No more child inflicted damage to your product.

Will this also be offered in a girlfriend size? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35396318)

Or a manager size . . . ?

"Dave, I think that your employees deserve raises."

Lucky for me that the EEG sensors will not be able to penetrate my tinfoil hat.

HAL-- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35396706)

Well, it's their right, after all. They have always owned the wretched thing.

char *hal = "HAL";
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
    --(hal[i]);

They would have Intel Inside? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35396734)

The last mimzy should teach them what hollywood do to your prefered tales when you don't behave. And IBM will just make it even (if possible) worse.

Rinse, Soak, Repeat ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35396894)

Robo-Hypnotic Brain (Pre-)Washing ?

What a wonderful idea!

I've heard the 2.0 will be wifi. Or 3G / 4G. And exchange telemetry with your walmart rfid. And matbe a few other rfids and chips you usually carry about without caring, or noticing. That's just modern life, right?

3.0 will be self- .... er, never mind that. Yet. >:-|

Good luck with that (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 3 years ago | (#35397002)

I think we can all imagine a 9 year old little shit banging his toy against a wall just to hear it say "ow"

Re:ow (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35397462)

We might need Lasse Gjertsen to put this in proper perspective and save us from it. Either him, or the remixer behind Developers.

Parents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35397328)

Isn't that what parents are supposed to be doing? What the heck do we need a robot for???

AI: Artificial Insanity (1)

professorflipwig (1420413) | more than 3 years ago | (#35397504)

Cue thousands of kids thinking they have schizophrenia.

Parents!? What are those? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35397544)

Will someone please step up and actually parent their children instead! Most teachers blame the parents when children can't behave. Most teachers are right. This will just enable more bad parents!

Zaap!! (1)

LotsaCaffeine (312054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35398224)

I wonder if they'll include the V-chip option to electrocute your child every time he says a cuss word?

Bill

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>