Human rights for robots?

According to Financial Times, a new paper sponsored by the British government discusses the possibility of extending human rights to robots (at some point in the future). The scariest part of the paper suggests that intelligent robots may eventually receive voting rights and "full social benefits . . . including income support, housing and possibly robo-healthcare to fix the machines over time." [Financial Times]

In an unrelated story (hopefully!), the trailer for Steven Spielberg's new Transformers invasion movie just came out, and it looks awesome. I am definitely a member of the Transformers generation, and I still have Soundwave (the Decepticon who doubles as a mid-80's boombox, pictured above) sitting on my bookshelf.

"UK report says robots will have rights" [Financial Times]
Soundwave [Toybin.org]
Transformers Movie Trailer [Yahoo!]

Top media corrections of 2006

Regret the Error is the only blog I know of that is officially dedicated to newspapers' errors and their subsequent corrections of those errors (although most political blogs dabble in that territory from time to time). Their annual report on the year in media errors and corrections ranges from profoundly serious apologies (like the Raleigh News & Observer's apology for its role in the race riots of 1898) to the hilarious (like the correction The Oregonian ran explaining that its "State's latest meth cook: OHSU" headline "should have made clear that Oregon Health & Science University will be studying the effects of meth, not cooking it").

"Crunks '06: The Year in Media Errors and Corrections" [Regret the Error]

Iraq Study Group: Iraq situation "grave and deteriorating"

The Iraq Study Group's report, released today, calls the situation in Iraq "grave and deteriorating," and warns that "the United States must not make an open-ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq."

PDF of the Report [U.S. Institute of Peace]
"Iraq Study Group: Situation 'grave and deteriorating' " [CNN]
"Chart: "Comparing the Options" [New York Times]
Chart: "Who's Who in the Iraq Study Group" [New York Times]

Back to reality

During his confirmation hearings today, Robert Gates said what the Bush administration should have admitted a long time ago - that the US is not winning the war in Iraq. [TIME]

For the entire duration of the war, the Bush administration and its apologists have demonized any frank discussion of what is really happening. Every time the media reports that another ten troops have been killed by insurgents, conservative columnists and bloggers whine about "bias"; every time a citizen questions whether this $347 billion foreign policy disaster is worth it, he or she is accused of "wanting us to lose" or "blaming America."

At this point, if I had to define the term "modern American conservative," part of my definition would be "one who believes that feelings and emotions are more important than reality." Conservative bloggers never seem to care about what actually happens; instead, the question is always just "what kind of message does this send?"

That's what's so refreshing about someone like Gates - in contrast with most of the Bush administration's appointees, he doesn't seem to give a damn about "staying on message." Whether he will be much of an improvement over Rumsfeld remains to be seen, and he is coming in at an incredibly difficult time. But as long as he puts the facts ahead of people's feelings, he's on the right track.

"Gates Before the Senate: Welcome Candor on Iraq" [TIME]

Thoughtful questions for Robert Gates

One the eve of the Senate's confirmation hearings for Defense Secretary nominee Robert Gates, the New York Times op-ed board gave six foreign policy experts a chance to list the questions they wish the senators would ask. The questions cover everything from whether U.S. troops' salaries should be raised to be on par with similar civilian jobs to the 347 billion dollar question: what on earth should we do in Iraq?

"Quizzing Robert Gates" [New York Times]