Tag Archives: Robot

News

Robot Rubio parrots identical talking point 4 times at ABC News debate

Leave a comment
Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Churck Schumer and RINO John McCain
Marco Rubio with his allies: Democrat Chuck Schumer and RINO John McCain

The big exchange of the ABC News debate in New Hampshire last night was Chris Christie taking on Marco Rubio for his habit of using canned 25-second responses like some sort of conservative talking points robot. Basically, Chris Christie pointed out to the audience that Marco Rubio never speaks in specifics, but instead just repeats the same 25-second conservative talking point over and over. And, amazingly, Rubio immediately repeated the same talking point again, and again, and again. Christie kept interrupting to point it out to the audience.

Watch:

Even establishment RINO Hugh Hewitt could not defend Rubio:

Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews debate about Marco Rubio’s debate performance on Sunday morning’s Meet The Press. Hewitt, a Rubio supporter, says that after his talked-about over-repetition of a line about President Obama’s nefarious intent in last night’s New Hampshire debate, Rubio will be preparing for a “South Carolina brouhaha.”

Matthews challenges Hewitt on Rubio’s performance: “Is there a logic to doing it four times in a row?” Matthews asked. “Why did he do it four times in a row?”

Hewitt admits what Chris Christie said during the debate is true, Rubio’s “staff had trained him” to say it that way.

FOUR TIMES IN A ROW:

Someone programmed Rubio bot to speak that line!

Rubio campaigned for the Senate in Florida saying that he was opposed to amnesty, then, when elected, he literally led the effort to give 20 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship – so they could vote for bigger government. When running, he was trained by his staff to speak anti-amnesty talking points, when elected he led the fight for amnesty.

Here’s the full list of Rubio errors:

Cruz fought against amnesty, opposes all bailouts, opposes all subsidies, e.g. – ethanol, and he got an A- rating on his response to the gay marriage Supreme Court decision.

This talking point parroting mistake has really given me pause about Rubio. I know that when he was running for Senate in Florida, he parroted a lot of talking points against amnesty. Then he co-sponsored the bill to give citizenship and voting rights to 20 million illegal immigrants. It makes me question whether to believe him about anything else, e.g. – pro life. I know that he is being trained on pro-life rhetoric, but he’s short on pro-life accomplishments. Fool me one, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Reactions to the Robot Rubio meltdown

I found several lists of “winners and losers” for Saturday’s debate, as well. This one is from the Washington Post, no friend of Ted Cruz:

LOSERS

Marco Rubio: Where to start here? Rubio has been such a strong debater so far — and a steady hand on the campaign trail in general. And then he ran into Christie. The New Jersey governor hit Rubio for never having been a chief executive and for not having much to show for his time in the Senate. He seemed to knock Rubio off his game so much that Rubio wound up repeating a stock answer about President Obama — that Obama knows exactly what he’s doing in driving the country to the left — three times. It was conspicuous and very not-smooth.

They also thought that Ted Cruz won the debate, and that his very unscripted, authentic answer about his half-sister, which I talked about in a previous post, was “memorable”.

I don’t want Rubio being the nominee and debating Hillary Clinton. He’s not ready to debate her, but Ted Cruz will wipe the floor with her. He excels at debate – he was national debate team champion, among other things.

News

Carson Weitnauer reviews the new DVD on hummingbird flight

Leave a comment

Here is a review of a new DVD from Illustra Media about birds and flight. (H/T Apologetics 315)

Excerpt:

First, the film features interviews with a variety of scientists, a philosopher, and a wildlife photographer. The full list includes Carsten Egevang, Thomas Emmel, Ann Gauger, Paul Nelson, Timothy Standish, and Dylan Winter. While some of the interviews felt a bit repetitive, they were generally woven together with skill, suggestively making the case for intelligent design. (One of the weakest moments is when one of them admits he wants to “make a shrine” to honor the birds).

I don’t see why anything is wrong with that! These are birds we are talking about – not cats.

He continues:

That’s the power of the ‘argument’ in the film: they don’t quote any holy books, they don’t make up any “Christian” facts, they just explain, in some detail, how the different component parts of a bird makes avian flight possible. From the development of the egg, to the first flight of a new bird, to a microscopic view of the feathers, to the unique functionality of the hummingbird’s tongue and the distinct nature of its flight, to the extraordinary coordination of the massive starling murmuration, and the unbelievable migration pattern of the artic tern, the question is raised: how could this have come about by an unguided process of survival of the fittest, random mutation, and lots of time?

Flight is an “all or nothing proposition.” Either you can fly or you can’t. But to fly, birds require numerous, highly sophisticated systems to work in coordination: the rapid beating of the heart, the huge breast muscles to power the wings, an efficient respiratory system, a lightweight digestive system, navigational systems for migration, an internal gyroscope for stable flight, acute vision to identify food, and more. How could all of these interconnected systems have emerged, without any foresight or plan, to create the new ability to fly?

Furthermore, it is clear that hummingbirds are a very unique kind of bird, with, for example, wings that can beat more than a hundred times a second and a heart that can beat more than 1,250 times a minute. Hummingbirds eat so much, the equivalent amount of daily food for an adult human would be 150 pounds a day! To accomplish this feeding frenzy, the tongue extends and withdraws a unique mechanism in less than one-twentieth of a second, thousands of times a day.

The second line of argument is the comparison of birds with award-winning, groundbreaking examples of intelligently designed flying machines. That is, when you compare a Boeing 747 or the “Nano Air Vehicle” (an experimental surveillance drone), it is evident that the flying systems of birds are more advanced. Why, the film asks, if we so readily accept ‘intelligent design’ for 747s, are we averse to using this same explanation for birds?

[…]The third feature is a wide range of computer animations that provide detail and insight into various biological components. I was worried these might be cheesy or overwrought, but they are instead illuminating and interesting. Nor are they stuffed into the film to show off some fancy computer graphics, but inserted with purpose, to more emphatically make distinct points. The professional standards make these animations a strong addition to the overall effect of the film.

I already have this DVD, and I am going to watch it this weekend, and this review makes me even more interested in doing that. Sometimes I quote something from a review here and think “now the readers don’t need to read it” but I really do recommend clicking through and reading this review of the Flight DVD. He’s not just reviewing the DVD, there are a lot of opinions and ideas in there!

I noticed that Carson had some words of caution about Paul Nelson and Tim Standish because they are young Earth creationists, but I don’t think that is a problem because there is a huge difference between a Ken Ham or a Ken Hovind and a Paul Nelson or a Tim Standish. Paul Nelson has a PhD in philosophy of science from the University of Chicago and Tim Standish has a PhD in biology from George Mason University. They are also both involved with the intelligent design movement. These are not outsiders.

By the way, I posted previously about how scientists are trying to reverse engineer the design of the flight feature in the hummingbird system, for use in nanorobotics.

UPDATE: Eric Chabot of Ratio Christi has another review of it here.

News

Scientists trying to mimic the design of hummingbirds with nanorobots

1 Comment

From Evolution News.

Excerpt:

In the Illustra documentary Flight, Dr. Thomas Emell of the University of Florida asks us to consider the speed of the synapses firing during the birds’ wingbeats (more than 100 times a second) and heartbeats (1,250 times a minute). Now, we see that each wingbeat, taking place in less than 10 milliseconds, involves even more control: tuning the wing shape at each position to optimize lift.

Masateru Maeda, a PhD student at Chiba University in Japan, captured the footage.

The ultimate aim of his measurements of the movements of the wings is to copy their function in the design of flying robots.

If something works, it’s “not happening by accident,” Discovery Institute Fellow Paul Nelson reminds us in the Illustra film. He describes how the unique shape of the shoulder bone allows the wing to invert on the reverse stroke, creating lift on both strokes. Now, Maeda has found that hovering also requires the hummingbirds to be able to sense their wings’ shapes and respond accordingly.

Mr Maeda said that the birds must have a very acute sense of their wings’ shape in order to remain so still in the air.

“If the wing shape isn’t optimised,” he explained, “it will fail to produce lift and the bird will start to sink.

“So it must be able to sense this and correct the shape of its wings.”

What this implies is that the wing shape (involving control of the flight feathers’ ability to slide as they flap), is under instantaneous control of the hummingbirds’ central nervous system. The speed of signals from brain to flight muscles now becomes even more astonishing.

In the documentary, viewers see a robotic hummingbird called the Nano Air Vehicle able to hover in mid-air. Its wings, however, perform simple back-and-forth movements while its stiff body floats upright in a fixed position. It has no internal guidance system, no heart or brain, and no fine control of wing shape. Without the human operator and his joystick, it would crash into the nearest wall. No wonder Nelson says that, despite its being a “sensational piece of engineering,” it is still “light years behind the bird that inspired its creation.”

What the Evolution News article didn’t mention is that even if the scientists and engineers can mimic the flying capability of hummingbirds by intelligently designing robots, they are missing out on a valuable aspect of what makes a humminbird a hummingbird. Can you guess what it is?

Take a look at this video:

Isn’t that amazing? Now, everyone knows that I am huge admirer of birds, and I have had birds as pets for most of my life. I know what these amazing little creatures can do firsthand. Not only can they fly, but they can build relationships with human beings – trusting them not to hurt them. No robot hummingbird can do that. Hummingbirds are exquisitely designed, and their design cries out for an explanation.