Futuristic Sex Robots Now Just "Sex Robots"

High-C writes "With apologies to Futuristic Sex Robotz, the future is here, and her name is Roxxxy. Truecompanion.com has revealed their answer to the Real Doll, and it looks nice. The site is short on details, pictures, pricing info, but wow." NOTE: some of the above links are not work-safe, for many values of work. I stopped by this exhibit today at the AVN Expo (not officially a part of CES, but by curious coincidence scheduled to coincide; the old saw that porn drives tech isn't without merit). Roxxxy, though, was rather unsexily posed on a couch, not moving a bit — downright creepy, in fact.

Comments

Re:We had sex robots for a long, long time

[sbbshoe092]

http://www.etradingitems.com/ Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 UGG BOOT $50 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16 New era cap $15 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25 FREE sHIPPING http://www.etradingitems.com/

fgdg

[Anonymous Coward]

Burberry handbags Replica
Louis Vuitton Handbags Replica
Replica Gucci Handbags
Replica FENDI Handbag
China Clothing Wholesale
|
Burberry scarves scarf
Louis Vuitton Wallets Replica
Louis Vuitton Hermes scarves scarf
Replica Louis Vuitton Handbag
Gucci Handbags Replica
scarf scarves wholesale
Hermes Handbag Replica
Replica Burberry handbags
prada handbags
Replica lv scarf
gucci purses on sale
knock off burberry wallet
replica watches wholesale
wholesale replica handbags
Mulberry Handbags Replica
stephen sprouse louis vuitton replica
Replica vuitton bags
burberry messenger bag replica
replica handbags wholesale
                           

Re:Nobody forced you to read it (sadomasochism?)

[mosb1000]

You have not rebutted this man's point in the least.

That comment (your comment?) is confusing and incoherent.

Next time you post a comment, think about it for a minute first. Try to arrange it logically. It helps if you read through it once or twice before you post it. Each sentence should express a single, coherent thought. Related sentences should be grouped together into paragraphs, with each sentence in the paragraph leading logically into the next. Each paragraph should also lead logically into the next, unless you intend to intend to make more than one point.

I've taken the liberty to rewrite your first couple paragraphs below as an example of what I mean:

Kenny whom I mentioned above? Is mentioned/noted there (and that young man? Is INCREDIBLE @ JAVA (even @ the "DataStructures" level))."

Your first sentence is incomplete. Try this: "Kenny, whom I've mentioned above, is noted in the linked article."

Your nested parentheses may be appropriate when you are writing Java, but the are not a good way to separate thoughts in english. It makes your writing choppy and confusing. Instead try something like: "He is incredible at Java, even at the Data Structures level."

"Yes... the young computer scientists of today, @ least those I was fortunate to have encountered this semester? Impress me, to NO end... & the "proofs in the pudding" above."

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but you absolutely need to express a complete thought in each sentence. In this case your paragraph is only one sentence, not two, three, or four as your punctuation would indicate. "The young computer scientists of today, at least those I was fortunate enough to have encountered this semester, impress me to no end, and the "proof's in the pudding" above." Might I also suggest this sentence could be added to the first paragraph giving you:

"Kenny, whom I've mentioned above, is noted in the linked article. He is incredible at Java, even at the Data Structures level. The young computer scientists of today, at least those I was fortunate enough to have encountered this semester, impress me to no end, and the "proof's in the pudding" above."

I hope that my advice is helpful to you.

~Bob

Re:Bob, prove you have a PHD in English, ok?

[mosb1000]

I do not have a degree in english. However, I have read many books, and I write a lot (for money) so I know a thing or two about the subject.

You may want to reconsider your attitude regarding the readability of your posts. If you write something which no one else can or will read, you are wasting your time. You don't have to follow perfect grammar and punctuation rules for people to understand you, but it helps.

On the other hand, you do need learn to express yourself with complete thoughts arranged in a logical fashion before anyone will give you the time of day. How much work do you expect people to do to read a post on slashdot? If you posts are painful and incoherent, people will skip right over them. Do you think I read your page long comment at the beginning of this thread? Not a chance. I would seriously doubt anyone else did either. The only reason I read your other comment was because the other guy was complaining about it and I wanted to see it for myself.

Re:Bob, prove you have a PHD in English, ok?

[mosb1000]

So you say you know how to write. I'm sorry, but that was not evident from your posts. Why post things on Slashdot that are poorly written if you can do better? Why defend the writing in posts that anyone with a cursory knowledge of written english can tell are horrible? And why post them AC? What kind of feedback were you expecting?

Bob advise AFTER you get a list like mine, ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say it, others did (even others here from /., this very site, via the moderations upwards I have received & put out)... so, so much for YOUR "opinion" because opinions on this note CLEARLY vary & you? You are massively outnumbered (and you have been outthought & outgunned by proofs, period).

(I only know I received a 780 score on my SAT in verbal, & that I generally score in the A+ thru B ranges in English in academia on my collegiate transcripts, and A+ solid thru highschool in that area).

Thus, vs. your UNQUALIFIED 'critique'?

Well, I only let OTHERS do MY TALKING, for me, per this list below

(Just for your reference again, lol, & of which YOU clearly have NOTHING TO EVEN COME CLOSE TO MATCH IT, inclusive of others "modding up" my posts here (not bad for a guy you can "cannot write" & direct it MY way)

"Argue with the numbers" Bob, because apparently?

Opinions vary, & you and the trolls here??

LOL, are HUGELY outnumbered by this list below, which was done by others here and in noted/respected international publication in this very field (of which YOU ARE OFFTOPIC to the max in no less) to MY credit:

"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

Lastly, being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3

What do I have to say about that much above? I can't say it any better, than this was stated already (from the greatest book of all time, the "tech manual for life" imo):

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." - Corinthians Chapter 10, Verse 10

----

+5 'modded up' posts by "yours truly":

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139485&cid=26975021

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139485&cid=26974507

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170545&cid=14210206

Re:Bob advise AFTER you get a list like mine, ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you keep repeating yourself doesn't make you more or less correct. The guy that you are currently trolling here has a point. If the format sucks, most people taking a cursory glance are not going to read it. Do you honestly think a lot of people are going to take the time to fully read each of your lengthy replies with the format you have chosen? But hey, don't listen to another person. Allow your narcissism to engulf your already over bloated ego.

Besides, there's plenty of idiot moderators here too. You can't use that as a defining point on the basis that your formatting is any "good". Saying, "You sir, are wrong because the majority agrees with me", is moot. Since when is the majority always right? Even after doing a quick look at a few random links you provided, I can see that you aren't always using the same format. If you truly believe in it that much, you would use it every single time.

Furthermore, in regards to your references, NO ONE CARES. It's the Internet. For every pedantic fuckwad such as yourself, there's a million more there to ignore you. I'm sure someone of your stature has seen the saying before - Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. Congratulations, you're top tard!

And lastly, if you get so many posts modded up, why not actually create an account here? Of all the posting you do here, you still remain as AC. Weird.

Re:Bob advise AFTER you get a list like mine, ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling you is so god awfully easy. No, I don't have a PhD. I'm not even an expert. But I do read a lot. If it's hard or annoying to read... It's hard or annoying to read. Eye of the beholder and all that. I, and other people don't like your style. It's a criticism. Don't like it? Ignore it.

As to the whole troll debacle and offtopicness, you started it first by posting trite bullshit about how you know someone, which as far as I could tell, had nothing to do with the article (but per average slashdot user, I didn't RTFA)

Then what's funny is that you replay to yourself with more bullshit that is entirely irrelevant to the article. See? You can't cry about others being offtopic when you're doing it yourself.

Get a life.

Adhominem attacks are NOT valid logical arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

"WTF I don't even... cut down on the drugs... - by Cassius Corodes (1084513) on Sunday January 10, @07:08AM (#30713924)

That the "best you've got", adhominem attack utilizing troll? You LOSE on the grounds laid out in PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC courses (which regards valid grounds for deconstructing an opposing views arguments).

Besides: Others here (besides you multiple registered account using trolls around here & your "packs of 'friends' cliques" bullshit aren't fooling others in this very thread... see here -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1504846&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=30713492#30713948 on THAT VERY ACCOUNT (Where Kneo even realizes & states you are naught but TROLLING SCUMS).

PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE from the URL above, in this very thread no less, as my proof thereof to my statement above (which I am "huge" on having, where trolls don't because they have nothing to their credit, & are usually blowhard losers):

"But you're trolling a troll." - by Kneo24 (688412) on Sunday January 10, @07:15AM (#30713948) Homepage

"Nuff said" as the saying goes, & with that quote above from others reading here? I didn't say it, others did... & ALL you are, is another mere troll. Probably one of the others above via alternate registered user logons here & yes, I have proof of where I caught others in that, red-handed, here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1501580&cid=30683968

Yes... You trolls *THINK* you can fool others, & take advantage of us AC's & yes, most you can. The system here is setup to constrain the AC to 10 posts per 24 hours... think that stops me?

LOL - I "blow by it" with ease, even as an AC (& I can probably outpost even you AC's in terms of how many I can put out, unlimited actually because of a GLARING hole in this forums tracking engine I am aware of is why... so, if you dumb trolls *THINK* you can just use alternate accounts, or your fellow troll friends to "outnumber me" or gang up on me & get that last word?? LOL, boy... do YOU have "another think coming"...)

Hilarious - the /. limit just tried to stop me, yet again & guess what? I am in here, within SECONDS, once more putting you (another lame adhominem attacking troll) right where he belongs... shown as stupid & humiliated, with ease.

"too, Too, TOO EASY"...

APK

P.S.=> Trolls: You're ALL THE SAME (for the 100th time outta me here, lol, & it's true - see the above posts, you chumps & your kind? Too TOO easy to knock out easily with facts... the likes of which none of you seem to possess to your credit, because you waste time in life "trolling", pitiful wretches that you are)... apk