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!

Company Unveils Personalized Anime Robot Girl

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the I'm-so-very-lonely dept.

Anime 240

MrSeb writes "It seems, as a culture, we have a deep-seated interest in robots and automatons, and if we can love an animal or other non-humanoid creature, what's to stop us from falling in love with a robot? Introducing Meka Robotics' S2 Humanoid Head: It has seven degrees of freedom, high-resolution FireWire cameras in each eye, zero-backlash Harmonic Drive gearing in the neck, and a ton of unnervingly-human movements and postures. She weighs 7.6kg (16.7lbs), has a pair of luminous, waggling doggy-like ears, and can be attached to a Meka torso and arm, if you prefer your robots to be slightly more corporeal. The girly, anime face is just a custom skin, incidentally: Meka will customize the shell to look like anything you desire. We're told that they value their client's confidentiality — and more importantly they don't judge. Powered by the open-source and extensible M3 control software, the S2 head (and body and arm) could be quite easily upgraded to use Hooman Samani's artificial endocrine and psychological models — and if you had the choice of falling in love with an amorphous, decidedly odd-looking furball, or a cute, perky anime girl, which would you choose?"

cancel ×

240 comments

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

Love (4, Insightful)

TechLA (2482532) | about 3 years ago | (#37698802)

Seriously, what's the fun with seeking love in an robot.. It's not like finding a lovely girl/guy is that hard. Much of the love comes from the fact he or she is a thinking person with own thoughts, and doesn't always just do or say what you want to. And if you're just looking for sex, just get an one night stand or a paid girl.

Re:Love (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698836)

What if you are so socially fucked up that even paid girls interpret the awkwardness as being a narc?

Re:Love (3, Insightful)

TechLA (2482532) | about 3 years ago | (#37698896)

So then just suck it up and do it regardless. That's the only way to get out of that awkwardness and anti-sociality. Actually you improve quite fast if it just happens. I used to be kind of socially awkward while teen, but then some girl got a crush on me and hanged on even though it was awkward at times. It's the only way you learn, and robot isn't going to help you with that, but only a real person.

Re:Love (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 3 years ago | (#37698914)

Well said. Yes, I suffer from a kind-of social anxiety disorder (it used to be called "shyness"), but I have developed strategies for dealing with it. I think the key is to make a study of other people who are very good at it and emulate them. I think a robot would be avoiding the issue - a kind-of displacement activity. But, I can imagine situations where it would be preferable for some people.

Re:Love (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699286)

Alcohol is the cure for shyness, if you still feel self conscious... Shut up and keep drinking!

Re:Love (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699574)

Well said. Yes, I suffer from a kind-of social anxiety disorder (it used to be called "shyness")...

I'm sure there's a pharm for that. Then, you'll be just like everyone else.

Re:Love (5, Insightful)

xmousex (661995) | about 3 years ago | (#37699778)

For me the social awkward anti-social thing was over with when high school started, and i have had my fun and a few marriages.

Now I'm in that age range where the girls I find interesting have plenty of other younger guys to go home with for the night. And the women who are my age or older and at the bars looking are.... eh.... not interesting. Those women are still looking at the world like its the 80s, they think facebook IS the internet, and physically most of them have lost what they used to have. And a one nighter means dodging the husband and kids.

Escorting is no easy out either. Law enforcement has raided and shut down most of the local boards I liked. And regardless of how much you pay there is no force on earth that will spare you the inevitable drama most females bring with them. It is very hard to find a paid girl who is actually interested in pleasing and not in a hurry to move along. And the price alone does add up to the point where some other investment starts to make sense.

But all that aside, having a relationship requires you give a damn. I strictly do not. I have been down that long road twice and when it comes to all the goals and directions I have to pursue in life, sitting around and listening to someone elses noise, and watching their tv shows, and adding their laundry into the pile, just doesn't fit my life.

This robot thing in the video is about useless, but the direction it suggests is a nice idea. Someday I will be older and floppier and these machines will grow more enticing. And there is a power button. !!!

And the best part. I actually KNOW their language.

Re:Love (5, Funny)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about 3 years ago | (#37699834)

And the best part. I actually KNOW their language.

You speak the binary language of moisture vaporators?

Re:Love (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 years ago | (#37699734)

What if you are so socially fucked up that even paid girls interpret the awkwardness as being a narc?

Learn to play a musical instrument.

If I hadn't been a musician playing in a band that performed at dances and parties when I was in high school, I never would have had a single date. That's how awkward I was. When I got old enough to start playing in bars, I was able to actually have sex with other human beings. The music (and, let's be honest, the alcohol) provided sufficient social lubricant that I was able to overcome the friction of my own personality. It gave me enough confidence that later in life when the girl of my dreams got on the #8 Halsted Street bus at Webster, I was able to summon the courage to talk to her and right now at 6:04am she's laying in the bed I just woke from, as she has been for the past 21 years. Of course, rigor mortis has made her a little less flexible, but still. (that last is a joke)

I don't know if things have changed in a generation, and maybe it's different with all the rapping and the hippity-hop music where they holler over two records playing at the same time, but if I could give one piece of advice to the lovelorn geek it would be this: Learn to play an instrument. I don't care if it's a harmonica or accordion or even a ukulele. Learn 5 songs, at least one that has the word "love" in it somewhere (that seems to have special meaning for females). Even if you don't get good enough to play in bars, there's something about the act of making music that has the seemingly magical effect of making interacting easier with that obscure object of desire of whichever gender you prefer.

Oh, and take a shower once in a while for chrissake. It's starting to smell like ass in this comments section.

Re:Love (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698874)

We are on Slashdot you insensitive clod!

Re:Love (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 3 years ago | (#37698888)

Software bots are pretty advanced these days. Throw in a text to speech translator and inputs from sensors in different parts of the body. I reckon you could persuade granddad to leave his net worth to a robot. And he would die happy.

Re:Love (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699366)

I am a unicorn.

Re:Love (1)

macraig (621737) | about 3 years ago | (#37698898)

Robots don't judge unfairly or hold grudges, unless god forbid they're deliberately programmed to behave that way.

Re:Love (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698908)

Some people disagree. There done.

Re:Love (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698930)

You must be new here.

In Soviet Russia, robot loves YOU!

I, for one, welcome our new female robotic overlords.

Loving a fembot is like loving a flying car, they may look fine but they're just not practical yet.

There's probably a Profit! joke in here somewhere, too.

Re:Love (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 3 years ago | (#37699226)

Considering how many men are in love with their cars and bikes more then they are in love with their spouse, I wouldn't discount flying car lovin' as a possibility!

Re:Love (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699312)

Yes, but they're not practical which is why no one ever bothers with them. You're not going to do your pre-flight check while doing 120km/h on the highway if you're even remotely sane.

Re:Love - Obligitory (3, Insightful)

EnempE (709151) | about 3 years ago | (#37698960)

It's not like finding a lovely girl/guy is that hard.

You're new here aren't you :-)

Or maybe he just isn't very picky (0)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 3 years ago | (#37699204)

Lets face it, since nerds now have the right to marry, it has gotten a lot easier, if you forego the gender requirement.

Re:Love (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699362)

Since when does robots/computers "just do or say what you want to"? They never do that.
And why exactly do you consider one night stands or paid girls to be preferable to advanced masturbation toys? Do you consider paid girls and one night stands to be less creepy or more moral in some way?

Re:Love (1)

TechLA (2482532) | about 3 years ago | (#37699558)

Who talked about morals? I just consider them to be more real than humping robots.

Re:Love (2)

Geeky (90998) | about 3 years ago | (#37699874)

FWIW, I think seeing paid girls is more moral than a one night stand if you're leading your one night stand to believe it could be more than that. It's certainly more honest. A one night stand where both parties know it's a one night stand up front is fine, but rare in my experience - one or the other usually wants more from it.

I don't have a moral objection to paying as long as there's no coercion. Believe it or not, there are quality independent girls who choose to do it out of their own free will and without drug habits to support.

Re:Love (4, Interesting)

Geeky (90998) | about 3 years ago | (#37699566)

You pay her. You see her quite regularly. You sort of become friends but deep down you know she's telling you what you want to hear to keep you happy - all part of the customer service. Then she says she's given up working but will still see you - you're a gray area. Since there was no need for her to say that, you believe her. You see her more often. You fall in love. You ask her out. She says she doesn't want to complicate things while money's involved but she's looking for a normal office job. You suspect she's still working. Although you only see her once every couple of weeks you hear from her every couple of days and get insecure if you don't. Half of you wants to know the truth - is it just what it is, or is there something real there? You dream of a future together but she's probably laughing at you behind your back and all the way to the bank while continuing to provide service as usual to anyone who's got the cash.

So, in summary, go easy on the paid girls.

(true story, by the way. happened to a, er, friend)

Re:Love (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699656)

Or as PQM depicted the situation:

You pick up this working girl who's hooked on smack, who hussles and scores. "That's all I do" she says. She says, "Ten bucks for head, fifteen for half-and-half". She says, "Three hits a day at 35 per". You say, "that's seven tricks a day at least", but she says "sometimes I get lucky. Once this guy gives me a bill-and-half just to eat me, only time I ever came".

You figure you can save her. You sell your color TV that keeps her off the streets a whole day. You hawk your typewriter for one jolt. Then your shotgun, your watch. A week later you say, "Listen, I'm a little short", but she says, "No scratch, no snatch". You say, "Look, it is better to give", but she says "Beat off creep".

One night they spot you on the street in your skivvies trying to sell your shoes. You tell them who you are, but they nail you. Then she happens by and she says, " Christ you look fucked". She says, "Hang tough!". But you don't say anything, you just think, "What a bum rap for a nice, sensitive guy like me".

Re:Love (1)

Geeky (90998) | about 3 years ago | (#37699736)

Yeah. Slippery slope. I - er my friend - knew it was time to scale back when I - er he - was spending as much on her as my - his - mortgage every month.

Not everyone wants a maiddroid (1)

voss (52565) | about 3 years ago | (#37699744)

Some people would be quite happy with a cute but Tsundere robot girlfriend telling them how perverted they are.
 

Re:Not everyone wants a maiddroid (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about 3 years ago | (#37699866)

rotfl my wife just got the dvd of that movie recently, after seeing the clips of it in that MC Chris music video "Japanese Maid".

We haven't watched it yet but it looks amazing lol.

I never really fantasized about being robosexual, but if a robot looked like the girl in that movie, I think I would give it a try.

This thing however um.... I mean... it doesn't even have any orifices? When I saw that they "don't judge" and "robot head", shit, I was expecting at least a mouth orifice with an attempt at a silicone covered, fully articulated tongue.

If these guys really want to make some sales, and work the "we don't judge" angle, they should team up with the real doll folks.

No Mouth (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698804)

Where do I put my penis then?

Re:No Mouth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698964)

My thought, exactly!

This... (1, Insightful)

errandum (2014454) | about 3 years ago | (#37698806)

This makes me sad in so many levels... ):

Re:This... (2)

sjames (1099) | about 3 years ago | (#37698892)

It's just another sign that society is wearing water skis and a leather jacket.

Re:This... (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | about 3 years ago | (#37699054)

It's just another sign that society is wearing water skis and a leather jacket.

Here's to hoping someone will outfit the sharks with lasers.

Re:This... (3, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | about 3 years ago | (#37698970)

Why, I think it's awesome.

We'll probably have good humanoid robots before we have human-like intelligence. But that's okay, because you still can use the bot for telepresence. Think about being able to have a walk in a park, or help in some physical way a friend who is on the other side of the planet.

With a good enough bot and control system it could be completely revolutionary. Lots and lots of applications: making things easier for old and handicapped people, virtually visiting remote and hard to access locations, remote customer service where an operator connects to a local bot...

I'm quite happy to see people contribute to the development of such things

Re:This... (0)

errandum (2014454) | about 3 years ago | (#37699460)

Can't it still make me sad? You're a bit naive if that's the only use you're seeing. I see a glorified sex doll...

Re:This... (3, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | about 3 years ago | (#37699510)

No, I see a glorified sex doll funding interesting research. I just don't particularly mind the sex doll part. Not my thing, but hey, I have plenty weird interests of my own.

Besides lots of awesome tech is first adopted in silly toys for ridiculously rich people with nothing better to do. Then the tech gets cheaper and benefits everybody.

Re:This... (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about 3 years ago | (#37699274)

Seriously. At least put that into this body [boytoydolls.com] .

Re:This... (1, Informative)

bjourne (1034822) | about 3 years ago | (#37699724)

NSFW dude!

Loving an animal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698812)

and if we can love an animal

I thought that was a little bit frowned upon...

Awesome (2)

vadim_t (324782) | about 3 years ago | (#37698830)

Progress seems to be steadily moving towards making Chobits a reality.

They should make sure to use redundant SSDs for storage, and have backup functionality, though. Hard drives lead to tragedy.

Re:Awesome (1)

kirbysuperstar (1198939) | about 3 years ago | (#37698840)

Progress seems to be steadily moving towards making Chobits a reality.

Okay, but we gotta move the reset switches away from the hoo-hah. That sort of thing is just asking for trouble.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698850)

Dude that was on ONE model.

Also the picture /. used for this has to be one I've never seen before.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699776)

They should make sure to use redundant SSDs for storage, and have backup functionality, though.

Backdoor functionality will be good too, one day.

Animals or other non-humanoid creatures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698856)

"f we can love an animal or other non-humanoid creature, what's to stop us from falling in love with a robot?"

That's pretty well absurd, possibly insane, and certainly indicative of an inability to interact with other creatures. If you still think that animals other than humans have no emotions or thoughts, you're deliberately not paying attention.
(Robots don't. Yet.)

Anime Girl Robots (2)

doubleplusungodly (1929514) | about 3 years ago | (#37698882)

Making people's harem anime dreams come true...several tens of thousands of dollars at a time.

P.S.: A feminine robot not made in Japan? :O

They don't judge. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698884)

"We’re told that they value their client’s confidentiality — and more importantly they don’t judge."

Someone needs to judge the quasi-pedophiles who would be buying an anime girl lovebot. Disgusting.

Not My Type (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | about 3 years ago | (#37698918)

The bitch is cold, really cold. I see rejection all over her face. Uh, what? It's a male robot?!?!? THANK GOD!!!

Women have it hard in the future (5, Interesting)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 3 years ago | (#37698922)

Seriously, they do

The feminist activists convinced women that they can act just as men do, resulting in this free-sex utopia. I think it was Freakonomics that pointed out that the price of sex has dropped since the 30's. Prostitutes used to cost more than the median monthly wage, now they cost the price of a meal - so if you're single and horny, which would you rather do - go on a first date and *maybe* get laid by the second date or simply pay the price of that meal and get laid?

Of course, men pursue sex - that's how we are built - and in the past we needed to commit to a woman to get assured of sex on a regular basis. Now with feminists making the argument that society won't judge women who are promiscuous, some women believe them, lowering the value of women in general. If I'm looking for a long-term relationship, I expect Mary to put out by the third date or so, and if she doesn't, I'll find my long-term relationship with Susan, who *will* put out.

Just for sex, though, even porn causes a drop in the value of women; whats going to happen when VR means that you can have a virtual g/friend for sex? That's an even further drop.

Yes, of course there will be men who still want a real women, but you cannot escape the fact that demand is dropping.

Re:Women have it hard in the future (1)

vadim_t (324782) | about 3 years ago | (#37699172)

Why just women?

I think overall it ought to balance in women's favour actually. Both men and women could conceivably get a sex bot of the opposite gender. But reproduction is still actually done by women. A woman can go with artificial insemination when she wants, and problem solved. A man can't have children with his bot, he still needs to find an actual woman for that.

 

Re:Women have it hard in the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699696)

A woman can go with artificial insemination when she wants, and problem solved. A man can't have children with his bot, he still needs to find an actual woman for that.

Or he can become a sperm donor and hope for the best :p

Men pursue sex (2)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 3 years ago | (#37699218)

Explain the navy please. If men are so obsessed with sex why do MEN volunteer to spend months if not years at sea with no females? No, not all US sailors are gay. Okay, most of them but not all. Some are bi.

But seriously, this myth that men are obsessed with sex needs to die.

Re:Men pursue sex (1)

heretic108 (454817) | about 3 years ago | (#37699358)

Explain the navy please. If men are so obsessed with sex why do MEN volunteer to spend months if not years at sea with no females?

Because in humans, the pursuit of sex tends to abstract into the pursuit of the availability of sex. This means doing stuff which ultimately makes one more attractive to the opposite sex.

To use a money analogy, what's more valuable? A million dollars in cash, or the ability to easily earn $10,000 any time, any where?

Re:Men pursue sex (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 3 years ago | (#37699374)

But seriously, this myth that men are obsessed with sex needs to die.

Well... since lifeforms split into male and female, and the female landed the bigger biological burden of making a new lifeform, there's been a big payoff for the male to be obsessed with sex. And there is a corresponding payoff for the female to be picky about who she lets make a new lifeform inside her. You'll always find exceptions of course, but myths tend to have some truth behind them.

For humans, the biological factors have changed dramatically in the last 50 years or so (effective birth control on the one hand, and far greater risk of disease on the other) but that doesn't instantly undo millions of years of evolution.

Re:Men pursue sex (1)

dkf (304284) | about 3 years ago | (#37699470)

For humans, the biological factors have changed dramatically in the last 50 years or so (effective birth control on the one hand, and far greater risk of disease on the other) but that doesn't instantly undo millions of years of evolution.

WTF? While you're right about birth control, you're dead wrong about disease risk. The invention of antibiotics has made a gigantic difference to disease risk, and while resistance is starting to increase the risk is still massively lower than it was for virtually all of human history. Things that were death sentences 100 years ago can now be cured (or at least contained) with pharmaceuticals. (I wouldn't say that we should trust big pharma, but they've managed to do a lot of good for all that. Their problem is that the low-hanging fruit is now mostly gone; future advances are going to be much harder won.)

Re:Men pursue sex (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | about 3 years ago | (#37699520)

GP is talking about STDs specifically.

Re:Men pursue sex (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699392)

Look at what is happening in the US. A lot of black men are in jail/has been in jail, thus removing them from the candidate list...
Put 19 men and 20 women in a room...

http://www.economist.com/node/15867956

Re:Women have it hard in the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699242)

It balances in both directions actually.

While it lowers the "dollar value" of women, it does the same for men.

VR and Robo-lovers are going to ensure that all the social shut-ins don't reproduce at some point. Unfortunately our smartest people out there are those very same shut-ins. So idiotcracy here we come.

All is not lost however, idiots can't innovate, just consume, so eventually what will happen is that there will be a population spike in idiots just before the last people who know how to operate power plants die, and then when the power goes out, we go back to the dark ages and kill everyone. Meanwhile the robots that were placed in vital industries (power, medical, food processing) in countries that thought far enough ahead will still be running until they break down.

Remember the average life span for our electronics today is 2 years. 30 years ago it was 20 years. Hopefully by that far off future robots will be designed to fix each other.

Just think about it, if the robot designs can "always replace a human" in every aspect of manufacturing, medical and food, these are the most expensive government costs and restore competition between developed nations and developing nations. What do you do with a few billion unemployed people?

Re:Women have it hard in the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699360)

So you're telling me women will "have it hard" -- that is, have it just like men have it now, where virtually none of us are able to profit directly (prostitution) or indirectly (dating/living together) from having sex that the other partner wants worse than we do.

Ok, so it's the end of the dominance of conventional marriage/commited-long-term-relationship? Sure. Doesn't mean people (men or women) are necessarily any worse off. All the time women would be having sex to pay for their dinner and movie, they can be doing something recreational or profitable instead -- and when they want sex, they can still get it, whether from a symmetrical one-night stand, or from their own sex-bot. What's the problem?

Re:Women have it hard in the future (3, Interesting)

Asic Eng (193332) | about 3 years ago | (#37699472)

Well the price of sex sinking is certainly a good thing, it means both men and women have more of it. Also while I find the "feminism = free sex" claim more than dubious (that's really not how it happened historically) - feminist would likely argue that women should not be valued as providers of sex, but for their skills and accomplishments. It's true though that this can be bad news for those women who have neither.

Women have more options today - they don't need to get married in order to have an income, they can pursue their own careers and their own goals in life. So while demand from men for marriage has dropped, the same applies for women, too.

Now neither men nor women are forced to have a relationship or enter marriage in order to have an income or to get sex. That changes many things and that's not necessarily easy. Overall it's good to have freedom to chose, though.

Re:Women have it hard in the future (2)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 3 years ago | (#37699710)

Well the price of sex sinking is certainly a good thing, it means both men and women have more of it. Also while I find the "feminism = free sex" claim more than dubious (that's really not how it happened historically) - feminist would likely argue that women should not be valued as providers of sex, but for their skills and accomplishments. It's true though that this can be bad news for those women who have neither.

Women have more options today - they don't need to get married in order to have an income, they can pursue their own careers and their own goals in life. So while demand from men for marriage has dropped, the same applies for women, too.

Now neither men nor women are forced to have a relationship or enter marriage in order to have an income or to get sex. That changes many things and that's not necessarily easy. Overall it's good to have freedom to chose, though.

It's hard to undo the instincts honed over millions of years of evolution. The average females instinct, no matter how independent and successful she is, is still to "settle" with a provider (due to the large investment she makes in the offspring). That hasn't changed. The males instinct (to spread seed far and wide due to lesser investment in offspring) is to mate with as many females as possible. This also hasn't changed.

What has changed is that society is now trying to convince women that they can emulate male sexual strategy with no drawbacks; unfortunately this satisfies the males primary mating instinct, while resulting in the female not having her primary mating instinct satisfied.

Overall, the free-sex utopia is giving males what they always wanted (lots of sex) while at the same time denying females what they always wanted - stability and security for the offspring.

(And to all those other replies to my post - Men never had a dollar value to women!, their only value was in providing security and stability, so women never had to buy it. Women always had a material value to men, as evidenced by prostitution. So saying "the value of men will drop too" is kinda pointless - they never had that value.)

Re:Women have it hard in the future (1)

rastos1 (601318) | about 3 years ago | (#37699518)

in the past we needed to commit to a woman to get assured of sex on a regular basis.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Women have it hard in the future (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 3 years ago | (#37699528)

Thats a fairly stunning collection of pig ignorant misogynistic lunacies I have to say. Apparently the "value of women" is solely related to sex in your world. What, mamma didn't love you or something? To be honest anyone that would prefer to have sex with a machine rather than an attractive partner of the same species needs their heads examined, to say nothing of the universal availability of masturbation if you're that badly off.

Re:Women have it hard in the future (2)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 3 years ago | (#37699654)

Thats a fairly stunning collection of pig ignorant misogynistic lunacies I have to say. Apparently the "value of women" is solely related to sex in your world. What, mamma didn't love you or something? To be honest anyone that would prefer to have sex with a machine rather than an attractive partner of the same species needs their heads examined, to say nothing of the universal availability of masturbation if you're that badly off.

I don't make the rules; the rules are that men pursue women for sex, women agree to stay with a man for security. This is how society is, and I cannot change that. The nash equilibrium for mating is already established and agreed upon by people far smarter than yourself or any of the oprah-ish magazines you subscribe to.

Your strategy of groveling before women probably works for you. Stick with it. However, the acknowledged superior strategies for men are simply to amass power and influence to attract a mate. While not *all* men and *all* women are the same, I'm not counting the outliers - they may not even reproduce at all!

Don't shoot the messenger.

Re:Women have it hard in the future (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 3 years ago | (#37699718)

I don't make the rules; the rules are that men pursue women for sex, women agree to stay with a man for security.

So that whole women entering the workplace thing has just breezed right by you eh? These are reprehensible sentiments - maybe you should learn to embrace and enjoy the pleasure women get from their own sexuality rather than being afraid of it and treating it as horse trading.

Re:Women have it hard in the future (2)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 3 years ago | (#37699746)

I don't make the rules; the rules are that men pursue women for sex, women agree to stay with a man for security.

So that whole women entering the workplace thing has just breezed right by you eh? These are reprehensible sentiments - maybe you should learn to embrace and enjoy the pleasure women get from their own sexuality rather than being afraid of it and treating it as horse trading.

Listen, I really do not make the rules - men and women evolved to have certain instincts and mating strategies that were beneficial to humans as a whole. These instincts aren't going to go away simply because you passed a law, you know. I welcome the freedom of women to do as they please, to be financially independent, to gain high-profile jobs and to use a primarily male mating strategy, because it works in my favour! It means I get to have sex with more different women, without having to provide for them, and only sharing the financial burden of the offspring. The more women who "revel in their sexuality", the more sex I get offered.

I'm not complaining, merely pointing out that women themselves don't seem to understand this until they reach their late 30's to early 40's, and then they suddenly find that it's almost impossible to find a worthy mate at that point because the males at that point (outliers notwithstanding) will still rather have the beautiful young women who, unsurprisingly, have not yet acquired power and influence themselves and thus are impressed by males with power and influence who express interest in them.

It seems that these days it is reprehensible to point out that while men and women are equal, they have different instincts.

Re:Women have it hard in the future (3, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 3 years ago | (#37699680)

If I'm looking for a long-term relationship, I expect Mary to put out by the third date or so, and if she doesn't, I'll find my long-term relationship with Susan, who *will* put out.

Or, you know, I might realize that in any successful long-term relationship, there's a lot of factors that matter more than how quickly I can get my partner into bed. For instance, do I enjoy spending time with Mary? Do we have some common interests? Do we have good and meaningful conversations? Can we figure out a way of working when work needs to get done? If this relationship really does well, and we end up hitched for the rest of our lives, we're going to spend far more time dealing with that stuff than whether Mary put out on the third date.

Re:Women have it hard in the future (1)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 3 years ago | (#37699722)

If I'm looking for a long-term relationship, I expect Mary to put out by the third date or so, and if she doesn't, I'll find my long-term relationship with Susan, who *will* put out.

Or, you know, I might realize that in any successful long-term relationship, there's a lot of factors that matter more than how quickly I can get my partner into bed. For instance, do I enjoy spending time with Mary? Do we have some common interests? Do we have good and meaningful conversations? Can we figure out a way of working when work needs to get done? If this relationship really does well, and we end up hitched for the rest of our lives, we're going to spend far more time dealing with that stuff than whether Mary put out on the third date.

While that is all true, you're making the assumption that there is a difference between Mary and Susan in Marys favour. That is an unwarranted assumption (why not make it in Susans favour?). I'm making the assumption that, all other things being equal, I'd be with Susan if Mary doesn't put out quickly enough, because there is no reason for me to wait.

Whether we like it or not, there is always mating competition (for both males and females); when a significant percentage of females are giving away what the others are not, then the others have no choice but to follow suit or else be left with those males that are so undesirable as partners that not even the promiscious women would sleep with.

I cannot see any way this ends ell for females.

cuts both ways (1)

spectrokid (660550) | about 3 years ago | (#37699742)

switch "man" and "woman" in your comment and it still works. You are starting from the (very sexist) notion that a woman sells her body in return for safety and (financial) stability. Well I have news for you: Most parts of the world, women are better educated. They no longer NEED a man. My father still can't fry an egg, my late mother would never have been able to provide for her children. These days are long gone now. In my generation, women have sex because they feel like it, not as a part of a commecial transaction. This explains the increase in divorces and single parent families. As Houllebecq said: the biggest mistake the feminists did was to teach men how to iron their own shirts.

Re:cuts both ways (2)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 3 years ago | (#37699768)

switch "man" and "woman" in your comment and it still works. You are starting from the (very sexist) notion that a woman sells her body in return for safety and (financial) stability. Well I have news for you: Most parts of the world, women are better educated. They no longer NEED a man. My father still can't fry an egg, my late mother would never have been able to provide for her children. These days are long gone now. In my generation, women have sex because they feel like it, not as a part of a commecial transaction. This explains the increase in divorces and single parent families. As Houllebecq said: the biggest mistake the feminists did was to teach men how to iron their own shirts.

Instincts don't work like that - you don't conciously think "I need a provider", you just find the provider more attractive to settle down with. All the politically correct ignorance in the world isn't going to change biology. We find certain types attractive because of biology, not because someone said so. You should read up on this stuff (human mating strategies).

Re:Women have it hard in the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699764)

Once either virtual reality or sex robots get cheap enough.

Women are in SERIOUS trouble.. Why deal with the 5, 6, 7 most guys will end up with.. When you can have a 10 at home that comes with an off switch. And will do ANYTHING you want. And more importantly can be replaced for a new model without giving up half your wealth.

A real good writeup on this. http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

Women got the equality they wanted. However i'm pretty sure they're going to find out it wasn't a great deal for them.

Re:Women have it hard in the future (0)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | about 3 years ago | (#37699806)

You were correct in posting anon - I should have done that too - apparently pointing out that feminism in it's current form is a raw deal for women will get you flamed by men who's sexual strategy is to grovel :-(

I wonder if I have the karma to burn ...

Re:Women have it hard in the future (3, Funny)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 3 years ago | (#37699888)

While you present a strong and coherent argument you leave out two very important facts. Who is this Susan? How do I get her number?

Meka hun please put down the machine gun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37698928)

I'd sleep better at night cuddling up to an ifish.

Every furry on the planet (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 3 years ago | (#37698952)

Yea, let's just not even go there.

Re:Every furry on the planet (1)

vadim_t (324782) | about 3 years ago | (#37699048)

That's at most a catgirl, not furry enough [ebaumsworld.com] .

Though I don't know why people keep insisting on making creepy humanlike robots when they could just put it in a fursuit. There are plenty makers out there that make very good looking ones, even.

Jad the genius (1)

epine (68316) | about 3 years ago | (#37698972)

Talking to Machines [radiolab.org]

The Robert Epstein segment still has me shaking my head a month later. It seems like for some men large breasts are the only reliable signal. Wake up guys. A B-cup is the French curve of aesthetic pleasure. With small adjustments of the gravity vector, it can become anything from a teardrop to a Tsarist onion, to say nothing of dynamic effects.

But then, if you're a speech scientist and you can't tell the difference after a month of correspondence, I can see the merit in opting for overflow.

Creepiest. Handjob. Ever. (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | about 3 years ago | (#37699000)

That stare...

such a tease (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699006)

I came in expecting real dolls themed after anime characters. This is completely a huge let down.

Re:such a tease (1)

EnigmaticIndustries (606450) | about 3 years ago | (#37699026)

I'm actually rather -relieved- that this isn't an article about realdolls.

All jokes aside (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699014)

It would actually be much easier, but not as much fun I suppose, to just get people to take anti-libidinal pills (aka Depo Provera) instead of going to the trouble of building a fully functional realistic female android.

RIP DENNIS RITCHIE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699016)

Netcraft confirms it - Co-creator of C, Dennis Ritchie was found dead in home this past weekend. There weren't any more details except for an unspecified illness. I'm sure everyone in the software community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

Dennis Ritchie (1, Informative)

grouchomarxist (127479) | about 3 years ago | (#37699094)

This is off topic, but other tech sites have been covering the death of Dennis Ritchie for hours, there are a multitude of submissions in the firehose, yet this hasn't been published yet. What gives?

Re:Dennis Ritchie (0)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 years ago | (#37699584)

Maybe because all seems at this point to be based on one Google+ post [google.com] and slashdot is a bit wary of such announcements, with the Stephen King trolls and all...

Re:Dennis Ritchie (1, Informative)

qxcv (2422318) | about 3 years ago | (#37699700)

Here [i-programmer.info] , here [theregister.co.uk] , here [h-online.com] and here [pcpro.co.uk] . Yep folks, unfortunately I'd say he really is dead :(

Re:Dennis Ritchie (0)

vadim_t (324782) | about 3 years ago | (#37699662)

What's the rush? He's dead, and that's not going to change. It doesn't matter that much if it takes a few hours to post something.

I'd rather have a well written article than "Dennis Ritchie was reported dead 5 minutes ago" and nothing else, because of the rush to publish.

Re:Dennis Ritchie (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699686)

Everybody is masturbating to the anime robot. That is why it is still there.

Almost as creepy (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | about 3 years ago | (#37699096)

Almost as creepy as that guy who decided to make sex bots after losing a friend in 9/11.

"The Naked Now" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699156)

Just as Lieutenant Natasha Yar asked Lieutenant Commander Data "Are you fully functional?" in the TNG episode "The Naked Now", I believe I would have to know the same about these Anime Robot Girls before reaching for my..... wallet.

looks expensive.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699168)

but still cheaper than having a girlfriend.

What if it crashes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699308)

If this thing crashes, it could rip your dick off and fax it to Hong-Kong.

Thanks, but no thanks.

AnthroPCs (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#37699436)

QC's future is closer than people think.

Reality following fiction (1)

Ashtead (654610) | about 3 years ago | (#37699466)

Some weeks ago, the comic Questionable Content had a plotline involving a new and very humanoid "chassis" for one of the characters.

http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1998 [questionablecontent.net]

And now this news --- well to paraphrase Mark Twain: Reality does not replicate fiction, but it rhymes.

Dear Slashdot editors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699640)

How about news that matters, about Denis Ritchie?

Let's see... (2)

argStyopa (232550) | about 3 years ago | (#37699684)

- costs me thousands of dollars, check
- will talk constantly, check
- will never come across with a blowjob or sex, check.

Yep, it's practically a real girl. At least this one comes with two positive aspects.
1) the impossibility of sex is clear from the start
2) I can terminate it or throw it in the trunk of my car without uncomfortable questions.

Next step... (1)

ClemensW (835172) | about 3 years ago | (#37699802)

Combine this robot with a RealDoll. Whadd'ya get?

either (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699840)

As long as they don't look like my ex.

Anime? (1)

Windwraith (932426) | about 3 years ago | (#37699862)

How is this anime? Because of the big eyes? I see no other reason to call it "anime robot girl". Could be an owl girl for all I can see.

This is definitely not Valsione-R. It's even worse than a Fairlion. (super robot wars fans, any here?)

Love? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37699870)

Fall in love with? Nah. Have something to play around with when the girlfriend isn't able to come over for a week or more? Hell yes.

Siri (1)

Smirker (695167) | about 3 years ago | (#37699890)

Throw in Siri and I'm hers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?