Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BuzzFeed and Washington Post To Use Robots For RNC Coverage (engadget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the robot-reporters dept.

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Engadget: The Washington Post and Buzzfeed have sent robots to cover the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. The Washington Post is using a telepresence robot from Double Robotics that consists of an iPad mounted on a Segway-like base. It's objective: to roam around the convention, streaming live on Periscope. Those viewing the stream will be able to ask questions of delegates, politicians and other figures who stumble upon the robot. BuzzFeed is using a robot called 'BuzzBot.' It's a Facebook chat bot that collects and caters news from the convention to users' messaging feeds. All you have to do is add the channel to your Messenger app and it will deliver news updates from BuzzFeed reporters. Specifically, it will collect reports from delegates, protesters and others in Cleveland. You have the option to send pictures and other info to BuzzBot, but it may ask you questions about your experience. The questions it asks will be different depending on your location. For example, if you live in Cleveland it will want to know what kind of impact the RNC is having on your daily life. Meanwhile, with roughly 50,000 attendees and likely millions of viewers watching across the country and abroad, the RNC is preparing for cyberattacks that aim to disrupt the network.

80 comments

  1. No Thanks by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    I'll be skipping both the RNC & DNC....tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, and in this case, it's a dead heat...I don't care for either of them.

    1. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best that you just move to Russia.

    2. Re:No Thanks by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I'll be skipping both the RNC & DNC....tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, and in this case, it's a dead heat...I don't care for either of them.

      As Penn Jillette has said, When you vote for the lesser of two evils you are still supporting evil.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? You have to vote for a shitty candidate or you have to leave your country? Who knew? I'm tired of this crap. Why don't we take our country back instead of acting like a bunch of lemmings?

    4. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'll be voting for McAfee as well? Good.

    5. Re:No Thanks by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      I'd suggest voting for Cthulhu, but apparently he's dropped out - he can't compete with the level of evil this year.

    6. Re:No Thanks by SirSlud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Life isn't ideal. People know this. Maladjusted adults think there's some sweet action-movie style alternative, as opposed to the kind of domestic war power vacuum ad-nauseum that happens in places all around the world. So again, do you want to vote for the candidate that is most likely to preserve your way of life, even if you feel you've been wronged so badly by the system? Or the candidate that espouses the kind of thing you really want to hear because he knows you're not worldly enough to know it's just a Disney movie?

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    7. Re:No Thanks by SirSlud · · Score: 0

      Not that he's dumb, but Penn Jillette has empowered manchildren in a pretty fun way. Libertarians love him, because he's a libertarian, but this is the same block who is so quick to cut down celebrities who express political views. In other words, you're getting your talking points from a financially successful magician.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    8. Re:No Thanks by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the problem is that you're trying to justify what amounts to laziness and apathy with what you think sounds like informed cynicism, but what to others sounds like playground-level petulance. When you boil it down, what you're really saying is a Cartmanesque "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:No Thanks by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Disclaimer: I am NOT a republican and I DO NOT support Trump even the slightest bit.

      Perhaps the problem is that you're trying to justify what amounts to laziness and apathy with what you think sounds like informed cynicism, but what to others sounds like playground-level petulance. When you boil it down, what you're really saying is a Cartmanesque "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

      There's wisdom in that. The political discourse in this country is really stupid, and it seems to mostly come from the left, but the right does it a little bit as well. For perfect case in point, why the FUCK would you protest a gathering of a political party? That is to say, what exactly are you protesting? Their right to peacefully assemble? Their right to speak their minds? I must be missing something huge because I really have no idea what is wrong with either of those things. I highly value free speech, and free speech means people can say things that you don't like. And to further that, why is it that if somebody says something that the left doesn't like, they almost immediately have to label it as racist, misogynistic, or otherwise hateful against a particular group when it practically never does any of the above? I keep hearing the word "racist" get thrown about Trump, however I've yet to hear anything from him that is definable as racist. So he wants to have tighter controls against illegal immigration, mainly directed at Mexico...umm...Mexico isn't a race.

      It's not so much a "screw you guys, I'm going home" moment, it's more of one of these moments:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    10. Re:No Thanks by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But what Trump and his supporters are railing against isn't a lack of free speech, it's the fact that there are consequences to saying certain things. What they really want is freedom from consequences. They want to say blatantly racist or bigoted things and not have anyone say "Hey wait a minute, that was horrible a prejudiced and wrong." They want CEOs to have the right to say "I hate homosexuals" and somehow not have boards of directors go "You're out of here."

      No one is contesting anyone's right to say anything they want. Go for it. Say you hate Mexicans. Say you hate Muslims. Say you hate gay marriage. But to imagine that other members of society have to keep their mouths shut or that people can't condemn you for it, well that's not demanding free speech, that's demanding that only you have those kinds of freedoms, and everyone else just has to accept it and keep their mouths shut.

      Trump doesn't represent some grand bastion of free speech. He represents an arrogant, rude, bigoted type of individual who wants to hold noxious beliefs, and then force everyone to simply pretend like the verbal diarrhea coming out of their mouth is just plain fine. So really it isn't about freedom of speech at all, it's about freedom from the consequences of speech.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:No Thanks by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not that he's dumb, but Penn Jillette has empowered manchildren in a pretty fun way. Libertarians love him, because he's a libertarian, but this is the same block who is so quick to cut down celebrities who express political views. In other words, you're getting your talking points from a financially successful magician.

      He cuts down celebrities who are being deceptive. This is something that the best magicians tend to be well known for, and indeed are responsible for effectively killing bunk sciences and professions like parapsychology, cryptozoology, psychics, faith healing, and exorcism. In this regard, Penn Jillette comes in the same vein as Harry Houdini and James Rhandi.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      If you have netflix (or torrent your movies) I recommend watching the movie "An Honest Liar", it's pretty entertaining to watch how he brought down the field of parapsychology and scammers like Peter Popoff.

    12. Re:No Thanks by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is ludicrous. Waiting for the perfect candidate is rather like waiting for the perfect spouse. Both are naive and overly romantic. All candidates are going to have flaws, and if you believe your favorite candidate doesn't have flaws and isn't going to be a forced into countless compromises, then you've ceased to have a political point of view, and have become a religious adherent.

      I can't think of a single candidate for president in my entire life that wasn't at the very least one of the lesser evils in some way. If you're walking away because voting for the better/less bad candidate seems like a compromise of principles, then you're not acting like an adult, but rather like a petulant child.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those of us who aren't abysmal losers actually didn't have to 'settle', we pick people we like and not 'whoever will date me'. Sure says a lot about why so many nerds are Republican though, if that's how you see it.

    14. Re:No Thanks by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They want to say blatantly racist or bigoted things and not have anyone say "Hey wait a minute, that was horrible a prejudiced and wrong."

      Such as? Be specific.

      And on that note, there are lots of things that are bigoted that the left doesn't seem to have a problem perpetuating. For example, it's considered totally acceptable to bash rednecks and Christians, even though doing so is by definition bigotry. How many times on an internet forum do you see people say "murica'"? Again, by definition that is bigotry. Have a look at the "unfair campaign"; again, bigotry. Need I go on? Why is bigotry acceptable so long as it's popular?

      It also occurs to me that you yourself are being bigoted against the Trump camp.

      Say you hate Mexicans. Say you hate Muslims.

      I haven't seen any of these things out of the Trump camp. I've seen comments to the effect of restricting their entry into the country (and given the impact that the later is having on Europe, there may be wisdom to that -- I don't know -- but it would be a very clear cut violation of the first amendment, so it cannot be done.)

      But to imagine that other members of society have to keep their mouths shut or that people can't condemn you for it, well that's not demanding free speech, that's demanding that only you have those kinds of freedoms, and everyone else just has to accept it and keep their mouths shut.

      I haven't seen this out of them as well (and my comments about bigotry on the part of the left have nothing to do with this; rather, that is to point out that it's pretty hypocritical to call out bigotry on the part of others when I have yet to meet a single person who hasn't exhibited some form of bigotry, myself included.)

      Trump doesn't represent some grand bastion of free speech.

      I didn't say he does, rather I'm pointing out how idiotic (and indeed hypocritical) it is to protest a convention.

    15. Re:No Thanks by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Not that he's dumb

      ..meaning: he is smart

      but Penn Jillette has empowered manchildren in a pretty fun way. Libertarians love him, because he's a libertarian, but this is the same block who is so quick to cut down celebrities who express political views. In other words, you're getting your talking points from a financially successful magician.

      ..but being smart isnt good enough for you. He also has to be unsuccessful. Thats an odd combination to wait for.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    16. Re:No Thanks by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Waiting for the perfect candidate is rather like waiting for the perfect spouse. Both are naive and overly romantic.

      The only person to say anything about perfection is you. Apparently in your world there is only evil and perfect, and apparently you use this bizarre idea to justify your continued supporting of evil.

      All candidates are going to have flaws

      Not all candidates are above the law. Not all candidates and perfect examples of white privilege playing kip service to trendy topics. Not all candidates are sexists. Yet both Trump are Hillary are all of these things.

      These are not just imperfect people. These are some of the worst kind of people. The list of character flaws for each of them is both long and scandalous. There you are tho, insisting that you will support one of them because nobody is perfect.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    17. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Such as? Be specific.

      Not OP but here is the first thing that comes to mind.

    18. Re:No Thanks by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

      For perfect case in point, why the FUCK would you protest a gathering of a political party? That is to say, what exactly are you protesting? Their right to peacefully assemble? Their right to speak their minds? I must be missing something huge

      You are. They are protesting because they disagree with what is being said.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    19. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't we take our country back

      Perhaps we could come up with a system where we gathered every four years or so on a certain day and chose who we wanted to be in charge.

    20. Re: No Thanks by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 0

      If somebody else is having a conversation that you are not a part of, you cannot simply barge in and disrupt their conversation.

      We have the freedom of association in the US. We are free to choose who we associate with. Racist skinheads are not permitted to disrupt church services at Black churches. This is no different.

    21. Re:No Thanks by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Which is ludicrous. Waiting for the perfect candidate is rather like waiting for the perfect spouse. Both are naive and overly romantic. All candidates are going to have flaws, and if you believe your favorite candidate doesn't have flaws and isn't going to be a forced into countless compromises, then you've ceased to have a political point of view, and have become a religious adherent.

      I'm voting for Gary Johnson. He is far from my ideal candidate, but I still agree with him much more than Clinton/Trump. I recently saw a post on FB with this quote, which I think sums it up really well:

      "When someone tells you you're wasting your vote, recognize that they don't care about you. It's a selfish statement. They are saying your beliefs aren't worth being represented. That you should silence your voice so theirs can be louder. Vote your conscience, not someone else's politics."

      So if you're suggesting that not voting for the Dem or Rep candidate (which is what the original post was referring to) is acting like a petulant child, maybe that's because you're being selfish.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    22. Re: No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If somebody else is having a conversation that you are not a part of, you cannot simply barge in and disrupt their conversation.

      Yes, indeed. You do have the right to have a private conversation undisturbed amongst like-minded individuals. On the other hand, if you are having a conversation in public, everyone has the right to make comment on your views. That is the way free speech works in this country. It looks to me like you and your Republican buddies want to make comments in public while the rest of us must sit politely and stoically silent. Not to put too fine a point on this, but you don't have that right.

    23. Re:No Thanks by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      "Christians" is not some homogeneous and monolithic entity, so the claim Democrats are bigoted against "Christians" is absurd. Is there some reason you think Evangelicals are representative of all Christians? Even among Catholics, a church that takes a decidedly anti-gay and very firm anti-abortion stance, many Catholics in the US are decidedly Liberal. So really, there is no Democrat anti-Christian sentiment, there's a negative perspective of certain branches of Christianity.

      And being prejudiced against something in and of itself is not bad, providing the prejudice is based on some sort of sound reasoning. For instance, I'm completely prejudiced against racists, but that hardly makes me a bigot.

      What you're doing is committing the fallacies of equivocation and false equivalence.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    24. Re:No Thanks by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      And on that note, there are lots of things that are bigoted that the left doesn't seem to have a problem perpetuating. For example, it's considered totally acceptable to bash rednecks and Christians, even though doing so is by definition bigotry. How many times on an internet forum do you see people say "murica'"? Again, by definition that is bigotry. Have a look at the "unfair campaign"; again, bigotry. Need I go on? Why is bigotry acceptable so long as it's popular?

      If by "acceptable" you mean "most people don't have a problem with it, or at least don't find it appalling", then I think you just defined "popular". Still, that doesn't prevent you from being bothered by such things, and telling people why. Again, freedom of speech means we both get to have our opinions. If most of the country finds yours appalling, I'd postulate that's probably your problem, not theirs.

      If you're curious specifically about those specific things, I'd suggest contemplating for a few minutes why its funny when a little kid gets angry and punches an adult in the groin, but not funny at all when an adult does it to a little kid. Context matters.

    25. Re: No Thanks by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      First of all, how is protesting the convention of a political party infringing on anyone's freedom of association?

      Second of all, how is the convention of a political party considered a private conversation? They are literally deciding the platform from which the party will (supposedly) derive its policies; they want it to be public, that's why they have a convention in the first place. Otherwise, what's all the press for?

      Finally, what do you mean by "disrupt"? A protest isn't automatically disruptive just because you disagree with the participants or the message. Skinheads holding up signs and chanting racist slogans on public property near a black church aren't breaking the law. Ever heard of the Westboro Baptist Church?

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    26. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The far left is just as racist and bigoted as the far right but at least the far right doesn't consist of a bunch of violent thugs running around assaulting people and trying to assassinate candidates:

      https://youtu.be/0t7PnrelFdY

      Buzzfeed is by far the most racist MS outlet out there and should be banned.

    27. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want to say blatantly racist or bigoted things and not have anyone say "Hey wait a minute, that was horrible a prejudiced and wrong."

      Such as? Be specific.

      Go back and review the comments regarding Brandon Eich, Cliven Bundy, that guy who owned the LA Lakers, that Duck Dynasty guy, and probably half of Steve King's remarks. You can even see it in the discussions here on Slashdot. If you've never observed that tendency, I can only say you may need to pay a bit more attention.

      Or be more honest. Really, the notions you're pushing are not a new set, it's a common pattern, but it really fails to persuade.

      And on that note, there are lots of things that are bigoted that the left doesn't seem to have a problem perpetuating. For example, it's considered totally acceptable to bash rednecks and Christians, even though doing so is by definition bigotry.

      Ah, trying that route? You may be confusing jocularity with actual criticism. They can seem the same, and often get mixed, but are often quite different, and knowing the difference is quite important. Something said in humor can even be self-identifying, rather than exclusionary.

      Besides, you may also be thinking that "The Left totally hates all Christians and Gods" as many on the right seem to believe and portray, even when it's not true.

      Note also how you didn't provide any examples yourself. For all I know, you're thinking of some Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy material, which will have problems if you think they're on the Left.

      How many times on an internet forum do you see people say "murica'"?

      Very few, outside of say, /pol which I reserve the right to treat as non-consequential.

      I certainly haven't heard it in any political platforms, and while I can recognize that many things people say on the Internet can be deplorable, I don't particularly weigh it as meaningful.

      Again, by definition that is bigotry.

      You need to recognize that sometimes definitions vary, or are poorly expressed, which causes problems. Yours certainly seems to be.

      Have a look at the "unfair campaign"; again, bigotry.

      How so? a href=http://unfaircampaign.org/>Please tell us.

      This is your only specific example, so it's your chance to elucidate.

      Need I go on?

      You should probably stop and think, you're getting lost in your own words.

      Why is bigotry acceptable so long as it's popular?

      Uh, duh? There was a time when "Yellow Peril" was popular. Or anti-German. Or anti-Irish. Or anti-Indian. You go into history, there's always been a time when certain things are "popular" and "accepted" and it is, because it is. Or it was. Such has always been true.

      This does not mean it is valid from another perspective, and through the lens of observation, we can see many different things in ways other than those who did see it.

      It also occurs to me that you yourself are being bigoted against the Trump camp.

      This reminds me of a joke. I'm not sure how it goes, but it ends with something like:

      Nazi officer: "How dare you condemn me! That's bigotry!"

      Or that bit from Futurama. Robot Santa says:

      "Mobsters beating up a shopkeeper for protection money! Very naughty. Shopkeepers not paying their protection money — exactly as naughty!"

      I haven't seen any of these things out of the Trump camp. I've seen comments to the effect of restricting their entry into the country (and given the impact that the later is having on Europe, there may be wisdom to that -- I don't know -- but it would be a very clear cut violation of the first amendment, so it cannot be done.)

      Of course they portray themselves as having wisdom and just doing what's common sense. That was true when

    28. Re: No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not just 'protesting' though, they're going around accosting and assaulting people.

    29. Re:No Thanks by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Go back and review the comments regarding Brandon Eich, Cliven Bundy, that guy who owned the LA Lakers, that Duck Dynasty guy, and probably half of Steve King's remarks. You can even see it in the discussions here on Slashdot. If you've never observed that tendency, I can only say you may need to pay a bit more attention.

      These are really dumb examples because none of them have been particularly set back by those comments, except for the Lakers guy who was set up by a jilted wife/girlfriend/whatever to say those things. If you just listen to the conversation, it's obvious the woman he was talking to was deliberately baiting him into saying those things, and it was very likely taken out of context as well.

      Either way, he hasn't come forth demanding his right to be able to say those things without civil consequence, and neither has anybody else.

      Sorry but you're retarded, and so is the rest of your needlessly lengthy post.

    30. Re:No Thanks by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      If most of the country finds yours appalling, I'd postulate that's probably your problem, not theirs.

      Absolutely not. If I mention a sensitive topic that has nothing to do with race, and somebody calls me a racist for it, that's their problem.

    31. Re:No Thanks by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      "Christians" is not some homogeneous and monolithic entity

      No shit. I never claimed otherwise.

      And being prejudiced against something in and of itself is not bad, providing the prejudice is based on some sort of sound reasoning. For instance, I'm completely prejudiced against racists, but that hardly makes me a bigot.

      I think you just did a really good job of demonstrating your own poor judgement. You've never lived their life, so you don't know why they might have a particular point of view. For example, think of a woman who has been repeatedly raped and now hates men; you aren't going to change this woman's mind by prejudging her.

      As for myself, I'll have a beer with a black guy, a redneck, a kkk member, a black panther party member...so long as they're not being hostile to me, it doesn't matter. The left, and especially people like you, have completely failed to learn from Martin Luther King Jr, which is your problem, not mine.

    32. Re: No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think a presidential candidate can save your wasteful, paranoid, ignorant, parasitic, and fundamentally unsustainable "American" way of life by selling out to the highest bidder (or by any other means for that matter) while you sit on your ass watching Disney's CNN eating french fries, you do not deserve democracy.

    33. Re: No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not Jill Stein?

    34. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are really dumb examples because none of them have been particularly set back by those comments, except for the Lakers guy who was set up by a jilted wife/girlfriend/whatever to say those things.

      Perhaps, but the question was the reaction, or rather the counter-reaction to the reaction against them.

      Are you going to deny that a component of the defense brought up in their favor was the claim of freedom of speech and that there was an attempt to silence criticism?

      If you just listen to the conversation, it's obvious the woman he was talking to was deliberately baiting him into saying those things, and it was very likely taken out of context as well.

      Yeah, a lot of people also tried at the time to portray HIM as the victim. Much like Cliven Bundy wanted to portray himself as the victim, or the Duck Dynasty Guy, or Brandon Eich, or any number of others. Presenting yourself as persecuted is quite common. But that might be getting us a bit astray.

      Either way, he hasn't come forth demanding his right to be able to say those things without civil consequence, and neither has anybody else.

      Who am I going to believe, you who is denying something, or what I've observed myself? Falling back on freedom of speech is a common practice for bigots, that's why they blame the "damned" political correctness all the time. They're indignant at being silenced by those nasty and evil liberals.

      It isn't limited to the US either..

      Sorry but you're retarded, and so is the rest of your needlessly lengthy post.

      Oh yes, if you can't address somebody effectively, just ignore what they had to say, then insult them.

      That kinda says a lot about you. If you'd just wanted to snip things down, you could have, but no, you had to make a comment like this.

      Look, I know you just don't want to admit this is real, you're much more comfortable demonizing the left for its sins, but that's a path that you'll have to escape on your own. Nobody else can do it.

    35. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. I never claimed otherwise.

      You left out the important parts of MightyMartian's words, let me re-add them for you:

      "Christians" is not some homogeneous and monolithic entity, so the claim Democrats are bigoted against "Christians" is absurd. Is there some reason you think Evangelicals are representative of all Christians? Even among Catholics, a church that takes a decidedly anti-gay and very firm anti-abortion stance, many Catholics in the US are decidedly Liberal. So really, there is no Democrat anti-Christian sentiment, there's a negative perspective of certain branches of Christianity.

      What you may not want to admit is that those branches of Christianity have earned the reaction they've gotten.

      I think you just did a really good job of demonstrating your own poor judgement. You've never lived their life, so you don't know why they might have a particular point of view. For example, think of a woman who has been repeatedly raped and now hates men; you aren't going to change this woman's mind by prejudging her.

      Hmm, I wonder how you think this particular tortured example actually applies in the real world. More likely, you're going to find somebody opposed to feminism. complaining that they treat all men as rapists.

      As for myself, I'll have a beer with a black guy, a redneck, a kkk member, a black panther party member...so long as they're not being hostile to me, it doesn't matter. The left, and especially people like you, have completely failed to learn from Martin Luther King Jr, which is your problem, not mine.

      Uh-huh. Exactly what's your purpose here? Is this supposed to make us esteem you? So you can sit and have a beer next to somebody who isn't bothering you, and it's everybody on the Left who has a problem, huh?

      To the contrary, since you're relying on your own interests being met and unchallenged, all you're doing is demonstrating that virtue cannot be measured in that manner. The question you should ask yourself is what will you suffer for, what burdens will you undergo, what will you refuse to accept, and when will you stand up for others to your own cost.

      To put it another way, you've said what you will do when it's easy for you. What will you do when it's hard?

  2. I'll pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All you have to do is add the channel to your Messenger app and it will deliver news updates from BuzzFeed reporters

    I'd rather get a root canal while simultaneously undergoing a cacti-rectal exam.

  3. Squirting Cream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10 ways you can disable robots with a can of cream!

  4. ED-209? by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    "You have 10 seconds to comply"...... /seriously, what could possibly go wrong?

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
    1. Re:ED-209? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I guess that depends. We need to ask congressman Steve King of Iowa if they're the right subgroup of robot.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  5. Thanks, liberals... by Nutria · · Score: 1

    for putting poor interns out of work, and endangering baby Republicans.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  6. Not a bad idea by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good way to be there and not risk getting shot

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Not a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good point, the Democrats are surprisingly willing to shoot people they don't like given their stance on gun control.

      Or is that the new way to sell it? Give us your guns or we'll shoot you?

    2. Re:Not a bad idea by Zaelath · · Score: 2

      I figured it would save the reporters hours of scrubbing the crazy off at the end of each day.

    3. Re:Not a bad idea by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Good way to be there and not risk getting shot

      How many people were shot yesterday at the RNC? I mean, with all those guns around, somebody had to have gotten shot, right?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  7. Robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or remotely operated devices which are NOT Robots.

  8. Hopefully like in Dallas, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those robots will have bombs to assassinate people. It's sad that the Republican's thugs in blue are using robots with bombs now to kill us.

    1. Re: Hopefully like in Dallas, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only murdered him because he was a Nation of Islam member. They're not going to use robot bombs in Republicans, unfortunately.

    2. Re:Hopefully like in Dallas, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Secret Service would like to have a word with you.

    3. Re: Hopefully like in Dallas, ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All the talk about speech having consequences, and Democrats are so divorced from reality that they can't imagine jokes like this could lead to members of their own party killing their party-defined "enemies." No, we NEVER advocated for violence. Firmly against killing people for any reason. Sorry. I was a lifelong Democrat, but behavior like this has completely and permanently soured me to the party forever.

  9. Dirty, dangerous, and difficult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds like the perfect job for a robot.

    1. Re:Dirty, dangerous, and difficult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like the perfect job for a robot.

      Indeed. The RNC already has a bunch of robots ready to nominate some Bozo to be their candidate for POTUS. The press robots should fit right in.

  10. Timberland Homme Pas Chers by zhenyulian · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    however that distinct coloration isn't actually offered at retail outlets in the United States as nevertheless. But when you're a Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan what does a thing like "not for sale in the US" signify, anyway?As if operating wasn't challenging plenty of, envision the suffering and suffering that people underwent when they had to tie shoes. 1 of the versions that this unique shoe was featured in by Nike was a slip on design for people who envisioned by themselves being able to wake up, throw on a pair of running sneakers and then hit the sidewalks to crank out a speedy five miles in a driving rainstorm or whichever it was the commercials depicted individuals donning these sneakers undertaking again then in fact needed them to do.For positive, while, the Nike Air Max TN was there back then, is the following appropriate now and is certain to be all around far into the distant long run when shoes will most very likely have high-tech motors on them to permit their people to be in a position to fly about like superheroes timberland Homme .

  11. understandable by PopeRatzo · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    The Washington Post and Buzzfeed have sent robots to cover the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

    You can hardly blame someone for not wanting to be in that group. The last time there were that many white people in one place, crosses got burned.

    Although, I'm sure many of the journalists will regret not being there to see Chachi's big speech.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

    Also, Melanomia is scheduled to speak tonight. You never know, she might just revert to type and show her pootenanny.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:understandable by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I love all these washed celebrities who suddenly love Trump. "I totally support Donald Trump, and I'm also available for birthdays and bar mitzvahs."

      It's almost like Trump can't find any real substantive supporters.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re: understandable by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      Are you implying there are celebrities of substance?

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:understandable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you mean just like all the droves and droves of celebrities that are saying his election will be the end of the entire world? Or the celebrities that got our current president in office?

    4. Re: understandable by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Are you implying there are celebrities of substance?

      I believe he's implying, rather explicitly, that there are celebrities with careers, who can get paid to leave the house.

      And then there are celebrities who will appear at the Republican National Convention.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  12. Odd coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was just hearing this morning about how these two outlets have been blacklisted by Trump but were given press credentials by the RNC for the convention.

  13. And if this works ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... we can send them in to the Fukushima plant next. Should be a cake walk by comparison.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  14. Even the Robots Don't Want to Be There by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Would you?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:Even the Robots Don't Want to Be There by PetiePooo · · Score: 2

      I'd rather send a machine than be there myself...

  15. suggests a toxic environment... by e432776 · · Score: 1

    ...and watching a few minutes confirms it. Bummer.

    1. Re:suggests a toxic environment... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, when your party is just about to nominate a man who has very little chance of actually becoming President, and worse, is likely to drive a wedge so deep between the major factions of the Republican party that it could deny the party the White House for several elections to come, yeah, I think that makes you bitter.

      Everyone but the swirly eyed Trump supporters knows he can't beat Clinton. It's not clear that if the Dems had the love child of Pol Pot and Kim Jong-Il as their candidate that Trump could beat them. The likelihood of him closing the substantial electoral college lead Clinton enjoys is extremely small, and if some of the swing states that went to Obama in 2012 wouldn't stick with Mitt Romney, what in the name of holy fuck do you think they're going to do with Trump?

      About the only thing to look forward to now is the concession speech, which, I'm sure, will involve Trump making absurd threats, demanding recounts and committing to being back in four years to try again.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:suggests a toxic environment... by Rockoon · · Score: 0

      Everyone but the swirly eyed Trump supporters knows he can't beat Clinton.

      They also said Bush Sr. couldn't beat Dukakis. The July polls were 37% for Bush vs 54% for Dukakis. The popular vote went 53% Bush 46% Dukakis. In terms of the electoral college it was a landslide, Bush getting 426 vs Dukakis 111.

      What matters is not whether or not you are leading in July. What matters is whether or not your campaign arguments have legs. In the case of Dukakis, Bush kept hammering home that he is soft on crime. Dukakis had no defense. The arguments against him had legs and there was nothing he could do about it.

      Hillary is in trouble. The corporate whore is both too big to prosecute and too corrupt to elect. She can't even play the feminism card due to her own actions.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:suggests a toxic environment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... little chance of actually becoming President ...

      You think Romney and McCain had a chance of being president? Only a lunatic would put a sycophant like McCain after a president like Bush junior. Romney made it clear the little people, (working and middle class) weren't important. Trump, definitely isn't any better. It just shows the sycophant is in the Democrat party, this election. Be grateful so many people aren't pissed-off at the Republican candidate, this time. Using that and getting a good VP, is what the Republican party should be concentrating on.

    4. Re:suggests a toxic environment... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And what the fuck do you think Donald Trump is, a modern day Ghandi? The man is a real estate scam artist who very likely massively overstated his wealth and business acumen.

      Clinton will win. The GOP knows it, but it no longer has the will power to prevent his nomination.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:suggests a toxic environment... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      And what the fuck do you think Donald Trump is, a modern day Ghandi?

      I said nothing of the sort, but apparently in your black-and-white-world, if you dont support Hillary you must support Trump......

      Trump is someone that will take the fight to Hillary. Its over for her.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:suggests a toxic environment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be grateful so many people aren't pissed-off at the Republican candidate, this time.

      I don't know what parallel Universe you are posting from but in my world, both Trump and Clinton have historic high unfavorability ratings. It's time for you to step out of the echo chamber and experience the real world.

    7. Re:suggests a toxic environment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know who the fuck this "Ghandi" character is supposed to be.

      Perhaps you're trying to talk about Gandhi?

    8. Re:suggests a toxic environment... by mcswell · · Score: 1

      ", if you dont support Hillary you must support Trump": My daughter has a bumper sticker on her car with three check boxes: Democrat, Republican, and Awake. Awake is checked.

  16. Goatse cream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Cream o' d' Bum!

    Goatse!

  17. CNN, everybody else is sending robots! by Rujiel · · Score: 2

    Quick, send in Wolf Blitzer while there's still time!

  18. What's new? by some+old+guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Considering the repetitive, scripted coverage of "news" by the media, I would assert that most journalists have practiced robotic performance for a long time.

    Get $narrative
        go to
    Print %story

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:What's new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite that, it is sad that these "news" sources have decided the opinions of halfish of the nations population is so beneath them they shouldn't bother physically reporting on what is happening. A technical glitch or two and the attitude that meant sending a robot instead of a human will just mean no reporting whatsoever. If it doesn't happen in our echo chamber then we don't need to talk about it.

  19. Cut out the middleman by uohcicds · · Score: 1

    If they sent some robots to speak as well, perhaps we could all just ignore the car crashes. Maybe someone could have a quick word with Elon...

    --
    It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.
  20. For your health by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably for the best since no humans should be directly exposed to politicians.

  21. Slap happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about sending in a robot that seeks out journalists and talking heads then slaps them across the face in front of the cameras. I'd gladly watch both conventions.

  22. What's the Buzz? by mcswell · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure Buzzbot is Light Years ahead

  23. Wait, H. Clinton isn't that love child? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean she's got that doughy face, that authoritarian stance (just look at her plans for the internet), and that fascist one hand covering the other thing going on.

    While I don't like Trump very much, I'm debating whether Clinton will turn out to be a bigger disaster for America than Bush Jr, followed by Obama has been. Either way, I think we should start omitted the 'Great' from 'America the Great'.