Kafka’s The Trial: College Football Edition

[Undefeated University of Cincinati Quaterback Zach] Collaros was 20 when he was cited for presenting a fake ID to get into a bar near the main campus. Completing the diversionary program, ordered Oct. 5, would allow him to have the case dismissed and the record sealed. Otherwise, he could face as many as 180 days in jail.

Bouchard told Collaros, now 21, that skipping the program isn’t like “blowing off a math class” and that he needs to grow up.

Bouchard said afterward that he expected Collaros to quickly take the first step in the program – an interview about life history and any issues with substance abuse. A defendant also must pay $200 and attend an eight-hour class on underage drinking. (ESPN)

Into the Uncanny Valley | SEED

In the West, there is often a Frankensteinian stigma attached to artificial intelligence, but Mori offered Japan a much different perspective. In The Buddha in the Robot: A Robot Engineer’s Thoughts on Science and Religion, published in 1974, he wrote, “I believe robots have the Buddha-nature within them—that is, the potential for attaining Buddhahood.”

Into the Uncanny Valley | SEED

Unauthorized Index of Going Rogue | Slate

When Sarah Palin’s 413-page autobiography, Going Rogue: An American Life, hit stands Tuesday, readers discovered the governor’s most mavericky move yet—that the book lacks an index. So Slate has compiled its own. Just print out this index, paste it into the back of your copy, and start skipping around! (And yes, the page numbers are real.)

Unauthorized Index of Going Rogue | Slate

The Value of Nature and Old Books




The rationality people get all over the Lux/Seedz thing. (The comments as much as the post.)

There is no such thing as “nature.”

1. People have attitudes about “nature.”

2. There may not be an absolute nature-thing, but there is probably not an absolute anything-thing; meanwhile I would guess that ‘nature’ can  remain useful to describe a space or force relatively unaffected by the rise of humans.

Fair enough on #1, though recursive. As for #2 … One of the more interesting things that I’ve read about nature lately is Bruno Latour’s critique of mononaturalism (see free book here), which argues that the genealogy of the concept of nature is really a genealogy of the concept of politics–i.e., what people generally mean by nature is that place where politics must stop–and that this usually serves to simply hide the grounding of said politics in a supposedly non-political domain.

Thus, I think that it would be more productive to begin speaking of natures than to adopt a sliding-scale of human effects. As Murray Bookchin says:

There is no part of the world that has not been profoundly affected by human activity–neither the remote fastnesses of Antarctica nor the canyons of the ocean’s depths. Even wilderness areas require protection from human intervention; much that is designated as wilderness today has already been profoundly affected by human activity. Indeed, wilderness can be said to exist primarily as a result of a human decision to preserve it. Nearly all the nonhuman life-forms that exist today are, like it or not, to some degree in human custody.

If there’s no anything-thing, does this mean we just go with more useful? Also, I like trees. Needed to be said.

The Value of Nature and Old Books