Company Unveils Personalized Anime Robot Girl

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?"

Comments

Love

[TechLA]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

We are on Slashdot you insensitive clod!

Re:Love

[MichaelSmith]

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

[TechLA]

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

[macraig]

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

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people disagree. There done.

Re:Love

[Pino Grigio]

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

[Luckyo]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[TechLA]

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

Re:Love

[Geeky]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[PopeRatzo]

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

[Geeky]

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.

Re:Love

[xmousex]

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

[Muad'Dave]

And the best part. I actually KNOW their language.

You speak the binary language of moisture vaporators?

Re:Love

[Geeky]

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

[xmousex]

HA!

no i was referring to this part:

Now, as far as lovotics go, the head and arm in the video are controlled by Mekaâ(TM)s M3 real-time (open-source!) control software â" and with M3, robot behavior can be scripted using a Python API, or with full-blown C++ plug-ins.

Re:Love

[aurelianito]

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.

Another option is learning how to dance something. Tango worked great for me and it does not require you to move your hip. In fact, it is better if you don't do it at all, giving us wooden dancers an advantage.

Whatever you choose to do (playing or dancing), remember that it will not work for the first 2 or 3 years. It is a lot of hard work to be able to dance or play an instrument in a pleasant way. That's where being nerdy helps. We are experienced in taking big and long projects and keeping doing them without pause for years until we finally achieve what we want. Just make yourself sure that you will like the activity even if you are not able to pick up girls because of it.

Re:Love

[tgd]

I dunno, you spend half your time in a relationship trying to figure out how to turn your partner on, and the other half wishing you could turn them off.

A robot may be an improvement.

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

So you've been to Thailand?

FWIW, I'd rather date a Thai whore than a US woman.

Re:Love

[mabhatter654]

I want to make out with Hatsune Miku!! And she can sing too!

Seriously, I'd bet she's at the top of the prototype list just for fandom.

Re:Love

[durrr]

You could program your robot girlfriend to wake you up with a blowjob.
Suggest programming your girlfriend anything and see how she react.

Re:Love

[GameboyRMH]

I hope you are roughly as young as that character looks...

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds ideal, as long as you don't make the mistake of falling for her.

I have several women that semi-sort of fall into this area, although without the outright payment. I see them, buy dinner, and whatever else they need - do the things around their house that need doing, and get sex out of the deal. I believe this was what "having a girlfriend" is all about. The advantage of "not complicating things" is that I see each when I want to see them. Really couldn't care less if they are seeing others as long as I get what I need, when I need it. You know what they say about variety being the spice of life? This way I have a different women for each of the various activities I enjoy and don't expect them to come with me to do things they don't want to do. One loves dancing, another movies, another the opera - I get the perfect woman for each of these things, and afterwards get to reap the rewards. All in all, the perfect relationship.

Who needs robot girls when the real thing is so much easier to come by?

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Like anyone actually experiences "love" anyway - IMO you'd be far safer with a robot girl than a real one. Maybe the economics of the situation will come around to our favor if we switch in mass to robots, and get less insane women - or equally insane with them in a harem - guess there's still no winning.

Re:Love

[tehcyder]

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

Reminds me of the (English) football chant to the tune of Guantanamera

Score in a brothel, you couldn't score in a brothel, score in a brothel, you couldn't score in a brothel

Re:Love

[tehcyder]

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.

With that charmless attitude, not having a relationship isn't going to be a problem, I imagine.

Re:Love

[tehcyder]

Another option is learning how to dance something.

Or you could just cut your throat now and save the long drawn out agony.

Re:Love

[Geeky]

That's more the "friends with benefits" model, which is a bit different, even if you are subsidising the benefits.

The thing is my "friend" has made that mistake of falling for her. Christ, he even cares when her kid gets sick and helped her choose schools.

(I love how even without being AC, I'm anonymous enough here to tell loads of complete strangers this shit).

Re:Love

[xmousex]

OOPS! I forgot to make sure I choose my attitudes based on what other people find charming. I certainly can't live my life without other people's approval can I??

Wait, let me consult my paycheck.

Oh okay, apparently its all working out quite well. But thanks for your concern!!

Re:Love

[g0bshiTe]

Here's the study save the money. It's called self confidence. Or you could just listen and talk to people and not give a real toss. When younger I found I had better success with women when I didn't completely ignore them, but when in a social situation paid little attention to them. This always seemed to work, you want what you can't have. Something else I found is that by just outright walking up and starting a conversation works wonders, even the prettiest of girls. They actually tend to be easier to talk to and tend to talk more as they seem so unapproachable that few guys even dare try.

You young awkward nerds out there, try it, worst that will happen is she says get lost. What are you really out at that point? Did you ride your bike for the first time. Keep trying it works. No mystery no dark secret.

Re:Love

[g0bshiTe]

Well said. You know you can still find one nighters, or people interested in sex only relationships.

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally agree.

There are discarded mufflers on the side of the street I have chosen to date rather then attempt dealing with another woman from the US.

But I have met both Thai and Vietnamese girls who were waaaaay more interesting then a discarded muffler.

Re:Love

[LongearedBat]

Much of the love comes from the fact he or she is a thinking person with own thoughts

Apparently, for some guys talking to Eliza is already too deep. Let alone communicating with a real woman.

Who knows? Perhaps giving them something to play with so they don't pass on their genes might actually be good for our gene pool. Is that mean? ;)

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

Sounds like maybe you didn't get over the awkward anti-social thing in high school after all.

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the love comes from the fact he or she is a thinking person with own thoughts,

The fun isn't in building a robot sufficiently advanced that it can pass the Turing Test. It's in building a robot sufficiently advanced that humans start failing the Turing Test.

Re:Love

[xmousex]

Yes it is still possible but in the 40s age range, its just getting harder for me to do without a lot of hassle and extra wasted time doing 'social' things, where I would rather do the things I actually enjoy and make me money.

Re:Love

[datavirtue]

"Throw in a text to speech"....whoa -- WHOA! there. No one said anything about them talking. Kind of besides the point.

Re:Love

[datavirtue]

You have to mature enough not to care. I thought the internet had solved all these problems. Guess I'm naive. I know plenty of people who have found girlfriends on the internet, if not for free then from a paid match maker site. There are tons of people out there and you can practically shop for them on the internet. Hell, you can even find one that will spend money on you!

Re:Love

[t4inted]

>(that last is a joke) Sooo... rigor mortis does not make her less flexible?

Re:Love

[xmousex]

you just being obtuse then or you didn't follow the thread or you are just trolling as you did post as coward.

The point was there are people in the world who would prefer robots out of loathing/annoyance/frusteration/boredom of girls, not just for the early teenage awkward virgin butterflies fear of them.

Re:Love

[gknoy]

Hey, as long as you feel happy and fulfilled, it doesn't matter to us (me?) whether you choose to seek companionship or not. May your life always be both satisfying and interesting.

Re:Love

[nukenerd]

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.

WTF has playing a musical instrument got to do with hookers thinking you are a narc and telling you to f#@k off?

Re:Love

[nukenerd]

Another option is learning how to dance something.

First of all, to "learn dancing" you need someone to dance with. But if you can find someone to dance with there isn't the problem. Or are you suggesting we learn by same-sex dancing with other geeks (or a robot)? And what good is that anyway - do you then put a flag on your hat saying "I have leaned to dance"? You still need to find someone who will agree to dance with you.

You are seriously underestimating the problem here (are you new?). I have never once danced with a girl in my life (although I have had girl friends) and don't suppose I ever shall. I tried some years ago asking girls to dance but they told me to f#@k off .. OK, the polite ones just ignored me. I won't ever try again.

Your advice sounds like a Catch 22 to me.

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should mention that. M friend's grandfather (great uncle?) lives up in the hills in a relatively large town just off a major highway. Anyhow my friend was telling me how none of the younger crowd can line dance, and how even though he's in like his 70's, since line dancing is a favorite with girls up there he can go into a bar and have partners for the whole night, and in some cases the morning after. And we're talking people 40-50 years his junior!

So learning a niche skill that certain women find attractive can land you a whole slew of women. Just make sure it's not videogames, most of the gils with a big enough gaming habit to find that attractive in a man are the kind throwing off warning signals that they'll be a mess if you hook up with them (and having been through a number of these before meeting my current GF another way, I can say that they're not worth the drama, time, or money investment. Nevermind the travel if they're not local!)

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does robots/computers "just do or say what you want to"? They never do that.

OK, but at least they do what we tell them to do. Which is still an improvement over humans. When you have an argument with a robot you programmed, you have no one to blame but yourself. It is a poor craftsman that blames his tools.

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

I got involved with someone who did the same thing, only I didn't pay her. You mention the same progression here, and I'm thinking about the last 12 months (it's all over now) and face-palming. Sorry to hear you had to go through that, I hope it was a ton of fun while it lasted.

Re:Love

[PopeRatzo]

First of all, to "learn dancing" you need someone to dance with.

Nonsense.

Go put on Fresh by Sly and the Family Stone and see if you're not busting a move no later than halfway through the song "In Time".

Some of my best dancing has been done after everyone else at the party has passed out.

Unless you're doing the Foxtrot, there's no reason that you need another person nearby in order to dance.

Here's another one: Look for an album by Cee-lo Green called "Cee-lo Green is the Soul Machine". There's nothing but dancing that can be done to that record.

Hell, go to Youtube right now, find the Digital Underground's Humpty Dance. If your body temperature is over 95 degrees F you're going to start dancing and you don't even have to get out of your chair.

"Stop whatcha doin' 'cause I'm about to ruin the image and the style that you're used to..."

Oh yeah, I went and did it right now and I'm doing the Dougie right here as I type this. Alright, search youtube for "Cali Swag District Teaches YOU How to Dougie". Look at that, free instruction...

You feelin' me?

Re:Love

[AgentSmith]

You got metal fever boy!

DON'T DATE ROBOTS!

Brought to you byyyyyyyyyyyyyy the Space Pope!

Re:Love

[bangwhistle]

One option is to take a dance class. Not necessarily Arthur Murray or another chain. Try looking at your local community center. Most classes allow you to come without a partner. You'll meet some nice people and everyone is in the same boat you are- learning something new. It's not all ballroom either - try swing, jazz, nightclub two step, country line dancing. You won't find classes in "thrash about to loud bar music" but good fundamentals in social dance can make you much more comfortable moving to the music. If I may be a little baser here, if you are assuming everyone in this class is an old geezer: I've taken many dance classes and while yes you'll find a lot of older people (like me) in them, most have included attractive young people of both genders. That said - I recognize that in a less structured situation (like a club) you may be turned down when asking someone to dance - and maybe not politely. But at the risk of sounding like a mom - someone who would act like that isn't worth spending more time with.

Re:Love

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to mature enough not to care.

Nothing mature about that.

Re:Love

[Hsien-Ko]

Seriously, what's the fun with seeking love in an robot..

I think you ought to know that this comment makes me feeling very depressed.

Marvin

Re:Love

[MichaelSmith]

WHOA! there. No one said anything about them talking

Oh yeah good point. Since we are starting from scratch we may as well get it right.

Re:Love

[Macgrrl]

Nah, it's just that after 21 years, the rigor mortis has passed.

Re:Love

[cerberusss]

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.

That sounds like marriage. Which isn't necessary at all for a good relationship. Why not try living-apart-together with a younger girl? Plenty of girls are into dating older men, who are more stable and have their act together financially.

No Mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do I put my penis then?

Re:No Mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

My thought, exactly!

Re:No Mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

...It has hands which feel like human hands more like the traditional robots arms...it can reach out low and reach out high...it's very smooth...
And, it doesn't judge!

Re:No Mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the redditors are here with their inane and predictable comments.

Re:No Mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

In your hand. Get used to it, because with that level of maturity it's probably the only place you'll have to put it.

Re:No Mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't notice the ears?

This...

[errandum]

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

Re:This...

[sjames]

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

Re:This...

[vadim_t]

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...

[MadKeithV]

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...

[roman_mir]

Seriously. At least put that into this body.

Re:This...

[errandum]

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...

[vadim_t]

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...

[bjourne]

NSFW dude!

Re:This...

[TheCarp]

Exactly. And... hey, sex toy isn't a bad auxiliary use. Most everybody likes to get off, and even those with a steady partner (or partners) have the occasional lonely night, or night when she isn't feeling well etc.

Yah the thought of people replacing human interaction with robot interaction is kind of sick on some levels, I tend to think that its going to be far more mundane. Its no different than having a cat that you talk to...which all pet owners do, and those who don't are liars. Do some people go overboard and use them as a substitute for social interaction or to avoid dealing with social anxiety? Sure... but what percentage of pet owners are we really talking about here?

Sure, anyone who gets one is probably going to lose a few days interacting with it, but, I doubt that we are looking at something thats going to hold many people's interest to the exclusion of real social interaction for long, most people aren't even that interesting for very long, and these are hardly even boring people yet.... though is still very impressive for what they are.

So yes... I fully support the addition of a mouth with fully articulated tongue, and some sort of lube secreting substitute for a salivary gland.

Re:This...

[roman_mir]

it's just a piece of plastic! How bad can that be?

Re:This...

[Anonymous Coward]

it says boytoydolls. How were you expecting that to be save for work?

Re:This...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, Japan. Constantly trying to convince the world that "fucking creepy" means "enticing". It's almost cute in a way.

Not the robot, I mean. That's just fucking creepy.

Re:This...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

But sex dolls are awesome XD and anime girls are awesome too (hell I am studying Japanese language/culture full time at university because I am such an otaku; anime, manga, cosplay, jpop, vocaloid, you name it, it rocks my boat), so I WANT THIS! But much more than this, I want a vocaloid! A Len, to be exact! He is so cute! :0 (and they have to give him the singing software! :))

Loving an animal

[Anonymous Coward]

and if we can love an animal

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

Awesome

[vadim_t]

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

[kirbysuperstar]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude that was on ONE model.

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

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Backdoor functionality will be good too, one day.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

After Taco stepped down, nobody bothers posting anime news here. Add to that the slump the industry is in (in the US, anyway, though you can argue that the Japanese are in a slump what with an endless stream of half-naked moeblob copycats pushing bluray sales of the fully-naked version) and there's not a lot of news to publish. What's the latest local news, that Tokyopop decided to come back but without any manga at all?

The icon probably got replaced back in the 2.0 redesign, just nobody ever used it. The old icon used to be Sasami.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Or DearS. Same thing with alien.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

And I guess you could literally "break her heart"! XD

I'd rather have a DearS BTW... but maybe that's just me ;-)

Re:Awesome

[tehcyder]

After Taco stepped down, nobody bothers posting anime news here. Add to that the slump the industry is in (in the US, anyway, though you can argue that the Japanese are in a slump what with an endless stream of half-naked moeblob copycats pushing bluray sales of the fully-naked version) and there's not a lot of news to publish. What's the latest local news, that Tokyopop decided to come back but without any manga at all?

The icon probably got replaced back in the 2.0 redesign, just nobody ever used it. The old icon used to be Sasami.

I have no idea what you ae talking about.

Animals or other non-humanoid creatures

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.)

Has everyone on /. forgotten Futurama??

[Nutria]

DON'T DATE ROBOTS! (Brought to you by the Space Pope.)

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4510/futurama-anti-robot-propaganda

Anime Girl Robots

[doubleplusungodly]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:They don't judge.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also going to be interesting legal issues when people start getting them made with their ex-girlfriend (or stalking victim's, or celebrity's) face.

Re:They don't judge.

[GameboyRMH]

Well first, anime != loli.

And second, if it gives them a safe way to get off, then why not? Gross but harmless, and may even be beneficial to society.

Re:They don't judge.

[N0Man74]

I find it absurd that people think that there should be legal control over what others fantasize about, if there aren't real people getting hurt in any real tangible way. I might add, being offended by the ideas or fantasies of someone else isn't real harm.

I will be the first to support sex laws that actually protect real people from real harm and exploitation, but people wanting to create thought crime, and want to make crimes over imaginary offenses can piss off.

Re:They don't judge.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about thought crime? If celebrities trade on their image, creating an exact replica of them will be a copyright or trademark issue, I imagine.

Not My Type

[NicknamesAreStupid]

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

[goose-incarnated]

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

[vadim_t]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Asic Eng]

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

[rastos1]

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

[Intrepid imaginaut]

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

[goose-incarnated]

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

[dkleinsc]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[goose-incarnated]

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

[Intrepid imaginaut]

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

[goose-incarnated]

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.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[goose-incarnated]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[goose-incarnated]

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

[sgt scrub]

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?

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[dkleinsc]

Perhaps I'm thinking about this differently, based on 2 assumptions that I'm not sure you're making:
1. I'm not going to date Mary while I'm dating Susan or vice versa. Maybe that makes me naive, but that seems to me to lead to a lot fewer complications if one or both relationships is successful.
2. I'm not going to trust the rumor mill regarding what Mary and Susan will or won't do on which date. Among other things, people change: Maybe Mary has a reputation for being a prude but discovered a new side of her personality, while Susan may have found Jesus and decided she wanted to remain celibate from now until she gets married.

Hence, the only way I'm really going to know what a relationship with either of these women is really going to work out is to try it. If I've dated Mary for a while, and she doesn't put out on the third date, that's not so essential to me that I'll end an otherwise positive relationship over that. If I prefer Susan's company over Mary's, I'm going to ask her out first, so I'll never know what Mary's views are on the issue (unless Susan and I break up).

You're making two assumptions which are questionable at best:
1. The only way a man can get sex is to go on some requisite number of dates with his desired partner. This is demonstrably untrue - if nothing else, he can probably hire a prostitute fairly easily.
2. The man in a long-term relationship is trading his commitment for her sex. This doesn't seem to be true - studies and polls on this topic suggest that a lot of men really value the intellectual, emotional, and social relationship as much as the physical one.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[msobkow]

Guess I'm abnormal. I value a good woman's companionship and friendship more than getting laid.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[goose-incarnated]

Who said that they're mutually exclusive? Anyway, I (and most people) can appreciate valuable companiship without sex, and sex without valuable companionship. However, when you are hooking up, *sex* is the reason why you do so - it's the biggest reason you are driven to pair up with someone, so if you value companionship and friendship more than you value sex, hook up with your mates instead.

You hook up with a women because she can give you sex, and you try to get the other things (companionship and friendship, etc) as well, but don't you ever forget that those things are secondary; if they weren't secondary you'd just pair up with some other guy (the probability of having shit in common is higher with a guy, after all)

so, yeah, to be PC it seems you also have to lie to yourself.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[turtledawn]

You don't see how this ends well for females? How about, we don't need you. We're already at the point where we can perform random chromosomal assortment on eggs and generate synthetic sperm in mice; the process is there, it just needs refinement.

And Darwinian sexual selection is still in play, you know - someone who's "putting out" on the third date is almost invariably going to be on birth control and will likely ditch you when your dickish behaviour is no longer compensated for by your dick, so your non-committal genes aren't getting passed on.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite them being in the bone-mills but still dating upwards and trying to find a provider seems to have breezed right by you.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[goose-incarnated]

You don't see how this ends well for females? How about, we don't need you. We're already at the point where we can perform random chromosomal assortment on eggs and generate synthetic sperm in mice; the process is there, it just needs refinement.

And Darwinian sexual selection is still in play, you know - someone who's "putting out" on the third date is almost invariably going to be on birth control and will likely ditch you when your dickish behaviour is no longer compensated for by your dick, so your non-committal genes aren't getting passed on.

You're an outlier; good luck trying to convince the rest of the women that they don't need to settle down with a man. In fact, the only studies I've seen that has measured womens happiness shows lower levels of happiness for modern women (40+). Men pursue sex. Convincing women to do the same when they never have done so in the past just results in lots of unhappy women.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see how this ends well for females? How about, we don't need you. We're already at the point where we can perform random chromosomal assortment on eggs and generate synthetic sperm in mice; the process is there, it just needs refinement.

That goes both ways. With technology, men won't need women either (kind of the topic of this article about robot girls)

If we are to believe in the stereotypes, then men has more to gain/less to lose for not needing women.

At worst, the stereotypes are false, and nobody's better or worse off.

And Darwinian sexual selection is still in play, you know - someone who's "putting out" on the third date is almost invariably going to be on birth control and will likely ditch you when your dickish behaviour is no longer compensated for by your dick, so your non-committal genes aren't getting passed on.

Again, goes both ways. Who's going to take these women who are "putting out" on the third date?

The good, non-dickish, committal men would want better women (women who don't "put out" on the third date). As such, those women's genes aren't passed on either, not with the men they want. Back to square one we go.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[tehcyder]

Prostitutes used to cost more than the median monthly wage,

I don't see how that's possible, it can only be that the cheaper prostitues just weren't identified as such. If the median monthly wage is X your disposable income is going to be less than a quarter of X.

I just don't believe that people saved up all their disposable income just to pay for a quick shag once every four months, and in the meantime spent no money on drinking, gambling, or other entertainment.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Intrepid imaginaut]

men and women evolved to have certain instincts and mating strategies

Goddamn brainless judeo-christianity has a lot to answer for.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[goose-incarnated]

Well, it is possible because the median was so low compared to the high outliers. Hence, prostitutes were only for the very rich and powerful. The average man just didn't visit them.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[DerekLyons]

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

I'm gonna call bullshit on this one - because there has never been a single price for prostitutes any more than there is a single price for pretty much anything else.
 
As to the rest of your arguments and replies... I'm gonna quote Buzz Lightyear, "you are one sad little man". One with some decidedly odd ideas about the human race.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect China to be a pioneer in this field with their skewed gender ratios.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but Susan does anal, so Mary loses.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen some women manage by creating communities with multiple families where all the women in the community raise the kids as a group. They get their settled, secure environment for the kids, and men don't necessarily need to be there (although inevitably a few will hang around and be good father figures). It's not ideal for all people, clearly, but it's actually remarkably similar to what some tribal groups were doing ages ago. The utilization of the community to raise children while one or both parents pursue a living isn't new, and a return to it would probably be good for us.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[msobkow]

Let me get this straight. You're trying to tell me what my priorities are? Bwahahahahhahahah

When I "hook up", it's mainly to have fun. If that sounds vague, it's because it is. Half the enjoyment comes from trying out things the other person is interested in that I haven't tried out before.

The odds of having something in common with a guy is no higher than with a lady. In fact, I tend not to get along with "the guys" because I'm not into sports, I gave up beer-binging years ago, and I'm too old to go chasing after women in a bar without looking like a perverted old man.

The biggest gearheads I've known were women. Most of the women I've known like fishing. When I was younger, they liked beer as much as I did. And so on.

Women aren't all that different from men in most of the ways that count for friendship or companionship. As you get older, you'll come to understand that, young grasshopper. And with that understanding, you'll find they're a lot easier to get along with than they used to be.

But more on topic, I can't imagine "loving" a machine unless it were truly sentient. Nor can I imagine wanting sex with a machine, because it wouldn't even reach the level of being masturbation with a partner (which is all a one-night stand is, when you think about it.)

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[cayenne8]

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

Yep...and you add in the benefits of NOT risking losing half your possessions every time you want to 'trade up' to a newer model. No listening to her bitch about you and your habits....never on the rag....not having to worry about knocking her up, and being stuck with her when all you wanted was to get laid a few times...etc.

Yep, when they perfect virtual sex, or these robots...real women are gonna be hurting, either that, or they will drastically have to change their ways and acts....otherwise, why would a man put up with all the crap that goes with women?

There's the old joke: "Why do women have tits?"

"So men will talk to them..."

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Mab_Mass]

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.

Further to this point, you can see how female and male sexuality play out in the absence of the other gender (ie, homosexual relationships). On the one hand, you have male dominated gay clubs where there is a culture of lots of quick and meaningless sex. On the other hand, you have the following joke (which I originally heard from a lesbian friend of mine):

What does a lesbian bring to the second date? A U-haul.

(These are, of course, generalizations. There are plenty of lesbians having quick, meaningless hook-ups and plenty of gay men in long-term, committed relationships.)

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[danhaas]

Men demand sex and women demand security, but those are necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions.

Men won't date someone who won't put out or isn't minimally attractive, but once certain minimum requirements are met, men will demand mental or emotional attributes from their partner, besides the sex. For some men, though, those attributes are to shut up and take care of the house; others will be happy with someone who just isn't batshit crazy; and others demand a loving and humble rocket scientist.

Women won't date someone who can't or won't provide, but once minimum requirements are met, etc...

Of course those minimum requirements depend on the person, and those usually depend on how much that person can provide sex or security for their partner.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[shutdown -p now]

"Judeo-christianity" (nor any other human religion or culture) is not responsible for the simple biological fact that females carry the burden of bearing children and giving birth, while males do not.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have Susan's number handy, do you?

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[fiannaFailMan]

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.

One thing counts. The ratio of her rack to her waist. Everything else is polite conversation.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Intrepid imaginaut]

What does that have to do with the apparent dependency of women on men? Wake up, there have been many matriarchal societies throughout history, not least of whom include the Mosuo in China, who practise polyandry with ongoing aplomb. The op hadn't much of a clue about what he was trying to say, except that teh evul wimmin were finally losing the upper hand in his brain because he could stick his prick in a machine. Genetics, this is not. Culture, this is, which is profoundly judeo-christian, an abomination that should have been scourged from the earth ages since.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[digitig]

You do realise that the availability of attractive partners of the same species declines rather sharply when one reaches middle age, don't you? Whereas (in men, at least) the sex drive tends not to.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[manwargi]

Apparently the "value of women" is solely related to sex in your world.

As people? Sure let's get it out of the way that they're plenty capable now that they're liberated and they're great thinkers, hard workers, fiercely independent, etc. etc. Nobody is trying to keep women down.

As prospects in a relationship? Let me pose this question to you: If love and sex are completely separate things, what does a romantic relationship provide that a platonic or familial relationship does not? Your answer automatically fails if it has anything to do with physical contact (i.e. sex).

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[monkyyy]

moores law? "soon" only people who want kids will have them; no idiotcracy if these things get cheap

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[goose-incarnated]

What does that have to do with the apparent dependency of women on men? Wake up, there have been many matriarchal societies throughout history, not least of whom include the Mosuo in China, who practise polyandry with ongoing aplomb. The op hadn't much of a clue about what he was trying to say, except that teh evul wimmin were finally losing the upper hand in his brain because he could stick his prick in a machine. Genetics, this is not. Culture, this is, which is profoundly judeo-christian, an abomination that should have been scourged from the earth ages since.

Just in case anyone thinks that parent knows what he is talking about, see this first - the example he gives is not even matriarchal, but matrilineal (of course, he may not know the difference), and the political power still lies with the men while the domestic power lies with the women (not much difference from the rest of us, is there?). And (to get back on track) the females who hold all the power *still* *only* settle with one man at a time (serial monogamy), compared to the free-love paradise being sold by the feminists and testicle-less men like parent, and the duties for men and the duties for women remain different , making this the worst example parent could have chosen to display of a society where men and women are equal.

Maybe there is a society that developed the same ideals that the feminists are selling - if so, I've yet to hear of it.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Man its funny watching you squirm. Buh buh genetics. Here's how it is son, in a world where people like to get dressed up in nappies and paddled with a plastic representation of David Beckham for jollies, sex has less to do with genetics than you think.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[goose-incarnated]

Man its funny watching you squirm. Buh buh genetics. Here's how it is son, in a world where people like to get dressed up in nappies and paddled with a plastic representation of David Beckham for jollies, sex has less to do with genetics than you think.

What school did you go to where outliers represent the majority of the population? The majority of women have a certain need from the courtship rituals, the majority of men have a different need; both needs have been finely honed by evolution to be what they are and aren't going to go away just because you'd like the world to match some ideal in your head. The feminist movement has very effectively satisfied the males needs while denying the females needs.

All the outliers you bring in as "proof" (even though on closer examination your previous "proof" wasn't) don't prove anything - they are outliers!, you understand? They are not representations of what most people want. Can't you understand that? Even the most powerful women still dates upwards, can you understand that? They don't date down.

(ps: Me pointing out that your previous example was fabricated bullshit is not "squirming"; haven't you ever been to school? Evidence sometimes gets examined, even if you don't want it to be).

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

in a world where people like to get dressed up in nappies and paddled with a plastic representation of David Beckham for jollies

... and how did you come to know about this?

Wait, maybe I don't want to know.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, to all of the above. Because the only value women have is to look good and be fuckable...

On a more serious note. What you just wrote was the the most misogynistic AND misandrist I've read in a great while. Yes really.. Fuck you! You porn addicted, moronic wanker!

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, to all of the above. Because the only value women have is to look good and be fuckable...

On a more serious note. What you just wrote was the the most misogynistic AND misandrist I've read in a great while. Yes really.. Fuck you! You porn addicted, socially inept moronic wanker!

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[goose-incarnated]

Yes, to all of the above. Because the only value women have is to look good and be fuckable...

On a more serious note. What you just wrote was the the most misogynistic AND misandrist I've read in a great while. Yes really.. Fuck you! You porn addicted, socially inept moronic wanker!

It's actaully quite amusing to see people like you get their panties in a knot over someone stating the obvious. Of course, if I point out that women are getting a raw deal, then I must be a socially inept porn addicted moronic wanker ... this is certainly going to be news to the various women I date (and, I posted with my real name, so you actually can look me up and count the number of women I've dated this year alone).

The only reason I can do as I please when it comes to dating is because females are willing to sleep around - great! I wasn't complaining, after all, just pointing out why I get what I want as a male, but females aren't getting what they want as a female. Continue the whole "explore your sexuality" (if you're female), because it's men in general who reap the benefits of that, not women in general.

Re:Women have it hard in the future

[hydrocloricacid]

I am impressed by your patience.
You provide facts based by logic and you get an emotional irrational response which ignores any facts you may of provided. I would of given up a long time ago.
Was especially astounded by the connection made between evolution and Judeo-Christianity when you were continually mentioning Evolution. Strange

I think you have found a Female overdosing on estrogen speaking "NewsSpeak" .

Meka hun please put down the machine gun

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Don't Date Robots!

[dcollins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtqGTn7PCBw ... The Space Pope

Every furry on the planet

[Khyber]

Yea, let's just not even go there.

Re:Every furry on the planet

[vadim_t]

That's at most a catgirl, not furry enough.

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.

Re:Every furry on the planet

[Khyber]

In the end they all look like mascot suits. Very few body-tight ones, heads are always too big, eyes too large and creepy and pretty much dead.

Re:Every furry on the planet

[vadim_t]

Some people make very good looking ones

IMO the biggest advantage would be that realistic fur is much easier to do than realistic skin. Most people haven't seen anything besides cats and dogs from very close, so they'd find it hard to tell when something isn't accurate. Also, unlike with skin, on a cat a good part of what you see is dead, which makes things easier.

Re:Every furry on the planet

[Khyber]

No, Latin Vixen does not count as good, every bit of criteria I mentioned above is like her Hallmark.

Wake me up when they make heads more realistic and give them the ability to use your natural eyes.

Also, more realistic movements. I'm already working on one with sound-tracking ears and facial mimicry. LV doesn't have the engineering/mechanical experience to make that kind of thing.

Re:Every furry on the planet

[vadim_t]

No, Latin Vixen does not count as good, every bit of criteria I mentioned above is like her Hallmark.

Well, I'm not saying it's the pinnacle of the art, but it certainly doesn't look bad to me.

Still, the general point stands: some things people do with robots look like they came out of a nightmare. I figure even a half way decent furry head would look better.

Wake me up when they make heads more realistic and give them the ability to use your natural eyes.

I'm pretty sure somebody did that, but I forgot who.

Also, more realistic movements. I'm already working on one with sound-tracking ears and facial mimicry. LV doesn't have the engineering/mechanical experience to make that kind of thing.

Now that is interesting, got links/pictures?

Re:Every furry on the planet

[Khyber]

Not yet, still waiting on the fabric. Got the servos and other electronics stuff I want in the suit already gathered.

Re:Every furry on the planet

[vadim_t]

Cool, got a blog or anything or that?

Alternatively, post a journal. Sounds interesting, I'd like to see what comes out of it.

Re:Every furry on the planet

[Khyber]

No blog or anything like that. However, I will be making a journal when I get to work on the project.

Long-pile fur, custom shaved, either glued or stitched to a body-fitting suit. Headmask will be as fitting as possible, gonna need some excess length to make a nape/wire shroud. Gonna have the guitar plug directly into the suit and broadcast via wireless transmitter. Purely a show/performance suit.

The bitch, the absolute BITCH, will be getting the tails controlled. That might be linked to another movement or general movement direction.

Re:Every furry on the planet

[vadim_t]

No blog or anything like that. However, I will be making a journal when I get to work on the project.

Long-pile fur, custom shaved, either glued or stitched to a body-fitting suit. Headmask will be as fitting as possible, gonna need some excess length to make a nape/wire shroud. Gonna have the guitar plug directly into the suit and broadcast via wireless transmitter. Purely a show/performance suit.

That sounds awesome. Great to see people do interesting things like that.

I only heard of one other person doing anything of the sort.

The bitch, the absolute BITCH, will be getting the tails controlled. That might be linked to another movement or general movement direction.

Yeah, that sounds complicated. Maybe servomotors or voice coils ripped from a hard disk? They'd probably be too weak to do anything too dramatic, but it might work by building up some momentum. Voice coils are really tricky to position precisely (as far as I gather it takes a signal with a rapidly switching polarity with an imbalance in the right direction), but just back and forth is easy, and they're quiet.

Re:Every furry on the planet

[Khyber]

Problem with using a voice coil is my ass will begin to hum.

Otherwise that could be done with a PWM driver made for handling/pushing huge amounts of power, but getting it to respond realtime is the issue, there. Thankfully, I have enough raw programming experience to do that much.

Re:Every furry on the planet

[vadim_t]

Well, if it's enough with just having it swing back and forth, you could just limit things to the extreme left/extreme right positions. That's easy, and shouldn't produce any hum, though it might look a bit odd when starting. Maybe limiting the voltage or current would work for fixing that.

Re:Every furry on the planet

[Khyber]

Was thinking PWM for twitch/thrash potential. Twitchy tails during a solo would be just about perfect.

Re:Love - Obligitory

[EnempE]

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

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

Jad the genius

[epine]

Talking to Machines

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.

[MrQuacker]

That stare...

such a tease

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:such a tease

[EnigmaticIndustries]

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

All jokes aside

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Dennis Ritchie

[grouchomarxist]

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

[Kjella]

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

Re:Dennis Ritchie

[vadim_t]

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

[qxcv]

Here, here, here and here. Yep folks, unfortunately I'd say he really is dead :(

Re:Dennis Ritchie

[Nyder]

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?

Are you new here? Your UID suggests your not, so your surprise, well, actually surprises us. This is how slashdot operates.

Anyways, Dennis is dead, he's not in a hurry to get anywhere, is he?

Almost as creepy

[EnsilZah]

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

"The Naked Now"

[Anonymous Coward]

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..

[Anonymous Coward]

but still cheaper than having a girlfriend.

Or maybe he just isn't very picky

[SmallFurryCreature]

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

Men pursue sex

[SmallFurryCreature]

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

[heretic108]

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

[jamesh]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Men pursue sex

[dkf]

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

[Asic Eng]

GP is talking about STDs specifically.

Re:Men pursue sex

[Qzukk]

And the ones that can't be cured now are what, aids and herpes?

Re:Men pursue sex

[jamesh]

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.)

You can throw all the antibiotics you like at HIV, Herpes, HPV, and viral hepatitis, and it won't do much except expose the recipient to increased risk of yeast infections. Sure, there are drugs for controlling those to some extent but... you know... better to not catch them in the first place.

And bacteria as a whole are slowly becoming immune to the various antibiotics we do throw at them, and there is some concern that we'll be right back where we started at some point in the future unless we can come up with something new.

Having said that, the increasing prevalence of those diseases would indicate that you might be right about the risk of disease not being a discouraging factor to the urge to engage in sex :)

Re:Men pursue sex

[Anonymous Coward]

The main change is AIDS.

It's both deadly, and subtle (you can't tell is a potential partner is HIV positive without an expensive medical test). This means that is spreads quickly, and left unchecked can easily result is situations where a person is more likely to have it than to not have it.

The end result is that danger from sexual disease had been decreasing for a few hundred years (as medicine got better), but in the last 50 years it shot back up to around where it was before antibiotics.

Re:Men pursue sex

[UpnAtom]

It's cute for me to join in with this Big Bang Theory discussion (the first series before they all got laid).

I've never felt any real desire to join the navy but men also seek adventure, honour and glory. There are many Hollywood films glamourising naval life.

You also imply that men plan extensively, or even understand their sexual drives. I suspect an average man's sex drive can be satiated by sex eg with a prostitute once every two months. The problem for most unmarried men is that they get used to frequent sex for a few months and then have dry spells lasting over a year.

I personally find the thought of shagging a robot as creepy as necrophilia. But I suspect I'm in the minority.

Re:Men pursue sex

[tehcyder]

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.

Most men, even young and virile ones, spend a lot of their time not having sex. Unless you're a film/rock star or something, the desire far outweighs the actual execution

So if you go to sea for a couple of months, for most people you're probably missing out on two or three random fucks.

YMMV, no doubt everyone else on slashdot slept with a couple of different people every day of the week when they were young.

Re:Men pursue sex

[Anonymous Coward]

Because in these men the obsession with violence is stronger.

Re:Men pursue sex

[Anonymous Coward]

I experience it not as obsession but rather yearning. And, in middle age, with a post-menopausal, breast-cancer-survivor wife for whom sex is *way* down the list, it's a powerful yearning. I think women often confuse male admiration with leering. We just think y'all are amazing, can't believe we share the planet with you, and underneath it all are those selfish genes, striving to continue the line.

What if it crashes?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Thanks, but no thanks.

AnthroPCs

[Arancaytar]

QC's future is closer than people think.

Reality following fiction

[Ashtead]

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

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

Let's see...

[argStyopa]

- 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.

Re:Let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

2) I can terminate it or throw it in the trunk of my car without uncomfortable questions.

Well, that is assuming the bot does not use reiserfs.

Re:Let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Hans! Are you working again on your killer filesystem?!

cuts both ways

[spectrokid]

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

[goose-incarnated]

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).

Not everyone wants a maiddroid

[voss]

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

[TheCarp]

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.

Re:Not everyone wants a maiddroid

[GameboyRMH]

So, one Nozomi-bot coming up!...mega-pervert.

Re:Not everyone wants a maiddroid

[datavirtue]

They did mention it had an arm....guess it has a hand too.

Re:Not everyone wants a maiddroid

[Clever7Devil]

What good is an anime-girl sexbot if there's no option for robotic tentacles?

Re:Not everyone wants a maiddroid

[TheCarp]

It does, indeed, have a hand on the arm. Compared to some robotic hands it looks very handlike. That said, it still looks like nothing that I want giving me the TSA treatment on my junk.

Re:Not everyone wants a maiddroid

[PwnzerDragoon]

Obligatory Big Bang Theory

Next step...

[ClemensW]

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

Re:Next step...

[bobamu]

Lacerated?

Anime?

[Windwraith]

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?)

Re:Anime?

[sandytaru]

The head stylization pretty closely resembles something like Hatsune Miku, sans a mouth.

Love?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Smirker]

Throw in Siri and I'm hers.

JUST DON'T INSTALL FACEBOOK!

[Oswald McWeany]

Just don't install facebook or the google toolbar on this robot OK?

You think Facebook knows too much about your life now!

7 Degrees of Freedom...

[bryan1945]

and 70 degrees of icky and "get me the hell out of here, now!"
This and that 'Natural Girl' sex robot (or whatever it's called) scares even Cthulhu. What if the 2 mated?! Throw in Skynet and you could have a freakish anime-head sex robot killing machine.
I'm going to crawl into a corner and have very bad dreams.

Re:7 Degrees of Freedom...

[Toze]

Welcome to the slow crawl up the far wall of the uncanny valley.

Re:7 Degrees of Freedom...

[Anonymous Coward]

and 70 degrees of icky and "get me the hell out of here, now!"
This and that 'Natural Girl' sex robot (or whatever it's called) scares even Cthulhu. What if the 2 mated?! Throw in Skynet and you could have a freakish anime-head sex robot killing machine.
I'm going to crawl into a corner and have very bad dreams.

You might want to get that checked out.

Pretty sure someone could get published with a paper explaining the chain of thoughts above.

Re:7 Degrees of Freedom...

[bryan1945]

Someone could get a doctorate just studying my psychological profile. :D

Where's the anime?

[MidnightBrewer]

While this robot is passingly interesting in terms of more realistic human movement, I don't see where the "anime girlfriend" comes in. Somebody's projecting a little too much.

Did I read that right?

[msobkow]

$300,000 for this toy? Is that a misprint?

For that kind of money, I'd expect this thing to clean the house, cook dinner, mow the lawn, wash the car, and do the laundry.

Re:Did I read that right?

[Toze]

That's some high-value laundry washing, right there. I'd expect a little more out of it than housework, myself... but I've been watching a lot of GITS, so maybe I'm biased.

Re:Did I read that right?

[lightbox32]

From looking at the video it appears that she costs an arm and (at least) a leg...

Firewire? Seriously?

[Nyder]

my subject says it all.

What's the with Japanese and robots anyway?

[elrous0]

Seriously, it's not like it's some passing fad either. I know they're an obsessive people by nature, but Jesus Christ, for decades now they've been CRAZY about robots (and technology in general, but ESPECIALLY robots). I mean they're fucking INSANE about robots. Granted, I guess it's a better obsession for them to have than empire-building, but wouldn't more varied interests be a little more healthy?

Re:What's the with Japanese and robots anyway?

[sandytaru]

From the Japanese folks I've met in real life, their entire culture is built around being socially awkward. I think that's why their pop culture deals with the robot-love genre better than anyone else. (Chobits from CLAMP is the de facto masterpiece of the genre and picks apart the ethics of robots better than anyone since Asimov.)

Re:What's the with Japanese and robots anyway?

[fiannaFailMan]

Seriously, it's not like it's some passing fad either. I know they're an obsessive people by nature, but Jesus Christ, for decades now they've been CRAZY about robots (and technology in general, but ESPECIALLY robots). I mean they're fucking INSANE about robots. Granted, I guess it's a better obsession for them to have than empire-building, but wouldn't more varied interests be a little more healthy?

What's a "more valid" interest? Celebrity gossip? Sports? Reality TV?

What's so unhealthy about being interested in robotics?

Jeez!

hey ted...

[Anonymous Coward]

..full-on robot chubber!

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anime girl > Real girl. Dunno why would would wanna bother with a real one when this one is probably more affectionate and (after the initial purchase, of course) won't steal all your money.

One word:

[Anonymous Coward]

Kowai!!!

(personal opinion not organization's)

Love

[jdavidb]

Sure, man can love a robot, no problem. Just have to build a robot that can do these things.

what does it actually do?

[cod3r_]

300k robot that just move around like a retard and look off into space.. pass on that grass

Demand is dropping because women are too demanding

[Anonymous Coward]

Women want men that will make women the center of their lives. It is not enough to be together because you mutually enjoy each other's company, men must be willing to spend basically all of their free time and cash catering to the woman's desires. If men aren't ready to give up everything for their women, then the men are cheap, selfish, and not dating material.

For women who want kids, the principle is the same but the focus is different. "Put your kids first, they say. What it means is...the woman loves her kids completely, and gives you her time of day only insofar as you provide for her kids. You are always second in her life, and she expects you to make everything other than her kids second in your life, too. If you aren't ready to build your entire life around raising someone else, you are not relationship material.

Women seem to want slaves more than companions, without the requirement that they be companions themselves.

With requirements like that....a $300,000 robot that will not sue you for all you are worth when it divorces you, will not get angry when you want some me-time, will interact with you whenever you are in the mood, and manages to satisfy your psychological need for a companion looks like a pretty good deal.

Where's the pro-USB Troll?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Didn't the mention of Firewire wake him yet?

Uh, dude...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dating former or current prostitutes is only for people who like open and/or polyamorous relationships.

If you are the exclusive or jealous type, you should date non-prostitutes. And even then you will still probably get cheated on.

Good luck.

it can probably still do a hand job

[Lead Butthead]

But be careful what you wish for...
From an 80's flick --

Ahhh, (s)he's got a helluva grip!
It's 400 foot-pounds. (s)he could crush (your wiener)