Wow, I've never seen a cat riding a Roomba before. This is incredible.

I believe they scour sand for food, so that's probably what's happening here. Which....would make it like a roomba...they are just specialized at sand instead of carpet and wood flooring.

Slowest... Roomba... Ever...

lol love the lines: "Something just beeped and I don't know what it was, was it my roomba?" and "My cleaning lady is vacuuming I can't hear anything" lol LOL

Carpet Shark could be a great name for a roomba competitor

is the 'body' of that 'guitar' a Roomba??

For years I have tried and failed to get my cats to ride my roomba, and here's a dog on a turtle.

>> ^shole:

should be transparent.. the poor fella can't see a thing


And we can't see either!

>> ^demon_ix:

And it's green! Aside for the poop.


Unless it is green poop!

http://videosift.com/video/Roomba-Cat-Rules-Over-Dog-With-An-Iron-Paw
not an exact dupe, due to the audio dub, but still...

>> ^blankfist:
Taking out trash is a man's job, she says, and I'm fine with that. Protecting the household is a man's job, and I'm more than fine with that. Doing anything that requires heavy lifting is my job, and that's cool.
As one of her Christmas gifts, I bought her a Roomba because we're both busy ... She thought it was sexist ...
What if she bought me a robot to carry out the garbage? You think I'd complain? Hells to the naw. I'd love it.


But therein lies the discrepancy. You accept that taking out the trash is solely your responsibility. She does not accept that it is her job to clean the floor. You said yourself: "We're both busy" which implies it's a job for both/either of you, not for her alone.

As far as the rest of the subject goes, there will never be true equality betwixt the genders because we simply are not equal.

The female gender will always be the one responsible for child birth and their biological chemistry can alter their psychology as a result. The male gender as an overwhelming majority possesses significantly more testosterone than females, causing them to be more aggressive as well as physically capable. (Note this isn't true for every male versus every female; again, it's just an observable fact for the vast majority of males versus the vast majority of females. Also, these aren't the only differences between men and women, but my point is that our inequality is inherent on a biological, not just societal, level.)

The whole feminism movement arose from the ancient oppression of women by men inflicted and accepted almost everywhere throughout human history (and is still carrying on today in many cultures). Feminism (and women's suffrage) was needed to improve the treatment and perception of females as a whole by society in general, but on a lower level provided the opportunity for any individual woman to seek treatment equal to that of her male peers.

While this equality is a available to any female who wishes to exercise it (even if it is not recognized/respected by every other male or female), the feminism movement did not and could not force all women into the role of a feminist, nor all men into the role of equals.

The points I'm getting at are:
- If a man chooses to be chivalrous, then it is a personal choice regardless of how it is interpreted or received by anyone else. His chivalry will be ignored by some women, vilified by others, and appreciated by the rest.
- If a woman wishes to be treated as an equal, she is relieved of the right to expect any male to, strictly on the basis that she's a female, provide her any special courtesy.
- If a women feels that she is entitled to special treatment just based on the fact that she's female, she'll likely look down on essentially all males and expect that they kowtow to her.

I think most women in America nowadays lie in the neutral camp; they don't seek true, full equality and they only feel slightly more entitled/deserving than males in general, but they appreciate a chivalrous male.

All of that is my long way of saying the bottom line is chivalry is not dead nor is it appreciated by everyone. If you choose to be a chivalrous male, you have to bear with the unfortunate fact that it will go unappreciated or even discouraged by some. (That's part of the package.) But in any case, if you do it, you should do it for yourself, just to be happy with and proud of who you are.

On the other hand, if you actually make an effort to intentionally lack all chivalry, then you probably don't care what females think about you anyway, so just be happy treating everyone else as equals. There's nothing wrong with that. No one is born automatically deserving of anything except common human courtesy, and that should be shared in all directions between all persons regardless of gender.

(P.S. Isn't it funny there is never any discussion about men who wish to be treated by women with some kind of fem-chivalry?)
(P.P.S. Funny to imagine what this conversation would have been if the two ladies on the sidewalk were two guys instead. Maybe the title would have been "Fisticuffs!" instead of "Chivalry?")

Ah. Good point @Psychologic. My girlfriend, as lovely as she is, falls into that camp to some degree. Taking out trash is a man's job, she says, and I'm fine with that. Protecting the household is a man's job, and I'm more than fine with that. Doing anything that requires heavy lifting is my job, and that's cool.

As one of her Christmas gifts, I bought her a Roomba because we're both busy, and she's very vocal about hating cleaning the floors because our apartment gets an uncanny amount of dust. I thought it was a sweet gift. She thought it was sexist, though she never came right out and said it was sexist. When I told her I was going to get her the Scooba for her birthday, she emphatically instructed me not to as if by doing so I was objectifying her or something along those lines.

What if she bought me a robot to carry out the garbage? You think I'd complain? Hells to the naw. I'd love it.

It's like a roomba without the cleaning!

I really was too busy this month to buy any presents for my girlfriend, so luckily for me she was going to be out of town for Christmas and wouldn't be back until the 30th, so that bought me some time to get her some stuff. Her brother passed away five years ago, and she has these two unframed pictures of him with her and her mother, so I scanned them in, blew them up (photoshopped them a tad), and I'm having them professionally framed and mounted.

I also got her a roomba. Somehow I feel this gift is unintentionally sexist. Anyone else have one of these? I hear they're actually pretty cool.

^ @ MG, I'm guessing you didn't really pay attention. He's not talking solely about things that are currently on the battlefield. He mentions Moore's Law, which I'm guessing you didn't hear. But Moore's Law simply states that technology will double every so many years. 60 years ago we didn't even have computers. 20 years ago the first cellular phone came out. Today, I'm sitting on a laptop that has more processing power than the entire world had 50 years ago with more storage capacity than was actually known just 200 years ago at the beginning of the scientific revolution. I carry a phone that tells me where I am to within feet, connects to the internet, downloads videos, stores a database of everything I want to know, and allows me to interface with it by touch and voice. 10 years ago I got my first cell phone . . . and can you guess what it did? Yeah, it called people. And I had to remember the numbers myself.

Singer isn't talking strictly about what is out there now. That's why he quotes the number of drones present at the beginning of this "war" and how many are currently there. Those Packbots are made by the same company that makes Roomba's. So basically, if you own a Roomba, you're a few sensors and a remote away from a Packbot. (That would be the makers comment, not my own.)

Your comment about still needing an operator . . . That is his entire thesis pretty much. When you have an operator who relies on the machine what is the possible consequence? Shooting down a civilian aircraft? Blowing up 3 civilians because their height profiles match Bin Laden? Yes, both have happened. Both times innocent people died while an "operator" controlled the machine.

Additionally, what happens when the operator has no sense of danger? They can just spray bullets into a crowd hoping to hit the bad guy? Maybe they become too easy to kill? Or maybe a group of hormone laden boys will sit around a tv screen and watch and cheer and people get blown up and get pissed off and want more carnage when their own gets injured? When you operate that Camary you pay with your life if you send it off the road or crash it into another car. If it's remote controlled, all you lose if your car and possibly kill a few others. You know, that HUGE debate over video games . . .

You may think he's a douche, but you completely missed his point because you sat there wanting to slap him instead. Kinda ironic I think, considering if you were there in person you would have listened more, but now that you're disconnected via a screen you're welcomed to wander aimlessly and make careless mistakes.