Letters to the Editor
Serai1
Published Letters: 502 Editor's Choice: 32
-
@Anonymous
[Read the article: A child robot that looks like it eats children]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow, my point really flew over your head there, didn't it?
The source of the misgivings you expressed - i.e., creating artificial life is bad because it messes with the natural order, created life would be oppressed and have no rights, etc. - is the very Frankenstein myth I mentioned, and its equivalents in European cultures. The whole point I tried to express there is that other cultures do not necessarily think the way we do, and are no less interesting or viable because they think differently. Dismissing another culture's outlook because it doesn't agree with yours, regardless of whether their point of view actually has merit or not, is at best, xenophobia.
What I find strange here is the fact that we're talking about machines. The only way in which they resemble humans is physically. I could carve a potato into the likeness of a human; that wouldn't make it one, nor would it give the benighted vegetable any human "rights". Robots are mechanical devices, and Manjoo's post does point out that if these things didn't look like humans, there'd be no problem. Physical appearance, the aspect of a machine least likely to weigh in its actual performance, creates a dynamic that hinders its development along its creator's desired lines. Given that it's purely physical appearance we're talking about - that the machines are neither less nor more like humans in any other aspect - why shouldn't the Japanese try to make machines that look like us? Given that these are not sentient beings with minds, hearts, etc., what reason can there be, other than our Shelley-derived reaction of distrust and loathing?
-
??
[Read the article: A child robot that looks like it eats children]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Excuse me, but the point did go over your head, as you proved with your comment. Am I supposed to ignore that?
You have equally proved my point about not listening to other people, and assuming your view of something is necessarily the right one. If your pride is wounded, that's your own lookout. You just made a valiant attempt to make me feel bad and surprise! It didn't work. If you're going to engage others on the web, I'd suggest not taking everything so damn seriously next time.
-
How utterly typical
[Read the article: The end of Bush's kangaroo courts?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The entire military commissions travesty is felled by a typo.
I can just see Jon Stewart sitting back and saying, "There's nothing for me to do here."
-
Speak for yourselves
[Read the article: Paris isn't free -- and neither are we]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We are powerless.
As usual, you people take your own inability to distinguish real news from utter shite and project it onto others. YOU may be part of the nationwide wave of people who give a shit about things like this, but please don't make the mistake of thinking we all are. I come to sites like Salon because I want a break from the blaring idiocy of the MSM, but it seems there are those who insist on dragging this time-wasting garbage into every conversation. It's pathetic, and especially galling since the internet is so in need of people who can actually spell and construct a sentence, to discuss things that actually matter. What it doesn't need is more and more drivel.
And by the way, aren't you tired of being so completely hypocritical? I mean, whining about how the media can't shut up about this junk? As Captain Buck Murdock said, "I guess irony can be pretty ironic", eh?
(And in case you're wondering, no, I didn't read the article; just plucked out a phrase near the end that seemed the most egregiously dishonest to me.)
-
@Christopher
[Read the article: Paris isn't free -- and neither are we]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After five years of Faux News's sycophantic Bush-licking (they have gotten a bit less slavering in the last year), can you honestly question that there are Americans with that attitude? There are people in this country who were teaching their children to freakin' pray to Bush, remember, and they haven't gone away.
-
Something that just occured to me
[Read the article: Talking to the publisher who stole Google's laptops]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If all these industries - publishing, music, etc. - are so outraged by the idea of copying, and think that everyone should get their media only in officially approved ways, then why aren't they investing in and supporting the public library system in this country? Not everyone can afford to buy all the media they need or want to ingest, and often one only wants a single viewing or reading or listen. Why should I spend $20 on a CD I only want to hear once? That has always seemed unreasonable to me.
That's the reason for the existence of libraries, and they acquire their materials through officially approved channels so people can access them only as much as they wish to. If these companies and individuals are so hot to get people consuming information only in the ways they can keep track of, then let them put their shoulders behind a renovation and update of the public library system.
And you know, such support might help to assuage just a little the intensely BAD reputation these organizations are getting with consumers, on account of their stubborn unwillingness to change with the times.
-
Oh, Christ
[Read the article: Portrait of a princess, interrupted]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know what, Joan? All that breast-beating and tsk-tsking you all do at Salon about how the media is so filled with trash like Paris Hilton? Is a LOAD OF SHIT. You're clearly heading towards turning Salon into just another tabloid celebrity dirt-nest.
Diana? Diana? Give me a friggin' break. That woman died TEN YEARS AGO. Only people who have no other interest in life than gossip read stuff about her. Yes, she was an interesting woman who did some good in the world. But for gods' sakes, what in the world is there to say about her that hasn't been said already a half a hundred times? Why don't you trot out some dirt about Marilyn, while you're at it?
And a blog? A BLOG?? Not just one article, but a regular series? And you claim you don't want to fill Salon with crap? As they say around the internet, "Bitch, please!"