Watch: What This Google-Developed Robot Can Now Do May Have You Thinking ‘Terminator’

Science fiction projected on the big screen through the marvels of movie magic is quickly becoming science fact brought to the real world by developers and technicians at a Google-owned company in Massachusetts. And with the latest humanoid robot whose extraordinary capabilities have just been revealed by that company, Boston Dynamics, one’s thoughts might naturally turn to the “Terminator” movies, “I, Robot,” or “Blade Runner.”

In March of this year, Western Journalism reported on the video produced by Boston Dynamics that quickly went viral as viewers saw what they had never seen before — a futuristic, four-legged robot named Spot maneuvering through different environments that helped to challenge and prove the mechanical creature’s incredible functionality.

We noted that watching Spot do its thing had prompted a lot of viewers to say they were creeped out by this computer-controlled beastie. On Boston Dynamics’ YouTube channel, people left comments such as “robot apocalypse,” “robot overlords,” “modern weaponry,” and “then I imagined seeing them hunting in packs, and the creep factor went off the charts.”

Now, at a conference about advanced robotics, the founder of Boston Dynamics, Marc Raibert, has just made a presentation that’s once again turning heads and raising eyebrows.

“My goal is to build robots that rival humans and animals, or maybe even exceed humans and animals in their ability to move around in the world, manipulate things, perceive what’s around them,” Raibert told the conference attendees. As he shared a video showing the advancements the company has made in a 6-foot 2-inch humanoid robot called Atlas, Raibert noted: “This isn’t completely out in the world because of that power tether, but we’re working on a version that doesn’t have that.”

By clicking on the video above, you can watch a short portion of Raibert’s presentation to the Fab Lab Conference and Symposium in Cambridge, Mass. — a presentation in which Atlas can be seen walking over jagged rocks and running along a forest path.

h/t: Daily Mail

What do you think? Does this breakthrough technology concern you, or do you feel its potential to enhance the human experience outweighs any risks associated with humanoid robot development? Let us know in the comments section below. 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The 3 Biggest Winners And Losers Of The First Republican Debate. Many Won’t Want To Hear it…

Analyzing the winners and losers of Thursday night’s first 2016 Republican primary debate could take many different forms, but clearly one measure of a candidate winning is raising his or her profile in a positive way.

With that measure in mind, there were some clear winners and losers. First, it must be noted that Donald Trump came into the debate with all the momentum and the most to lose. How did he fare? By many measures, pretty well. Drudge Report ran an online, unscientific poll afterwards, with 38 percent voting for the billionaire candidate as the winner. Furthermore, the Washington Post noted that Trump outstripped the other candidates for the highest Google search interest by minute.

Was he a winner? In the sense that he did not suffer any candidacy-ending or crippling blows, one would have to say yes. Did he raise his profile further in a positive way? Not as much. His refusal to rule out a third party run certainly will not win him friends among the Republican faithful, as evidenced by the loud boos in the arena. The focus group conducted by GOP pollster Frank Luntz with voters afterwards revealed similar sentiment. Overall, Trump’s status probably remains unchanged in the Republican field.

Who were three of the clear winners last night?

Ted Cruz: The Texas senator’s answers regarding illegal immigration, ISIS, and ending Obama’s unlawful executive action (the last of which he incorporated in a powerful close) resonated well with the crowd and apparently across the nation. Cruz said, “If I’m elected president, let me tell you about my first day in office. The first thing I intend to do is to rescind every illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by Barack Obama…” He went into the debate registering 5.5 percent in the Real Clear Average of polls and came out with 15.5 percent, saying he had won the debate in the Drudge survey.  He also received the highest Google search interest of any candidate overall.

Marco Rubio: The Florida senator delivered one of the best one-liners of the night: “Well, first, let me say I think God has blessed us. He has blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.” Rubio also showed himself strong on a range of issues from business to social issues to foreign policy. He came into the night with similar support to Cruz at 5.3 percent; and according to Drudge, 10 percent thought he won. Again, Google shows him as one of the most searched candidates of the night.

Ben Carson: The good Dr. Carson appeared to start off slower, but had solid answers on race, foreign policy, and the sanctity of life. Lawyers are taught the power of primacy and recency for influencing a jury: those who are able to frame the argument and those who get to end it. On the latter, Carson delivered a powerful blow in his closing employing humor. He said: “Well, I haven’t said anything about me being the only one to do anything, so let me try that. I’m the only one to separate siamese twins…the only one to operate on babies while they were still in mother’s womb, the only one to take out half of a brain, although you would think, if you go to Washington, that someone had beat me to it.” Carson scored 10 percent in the Drudge survey and received a strong Google search interest, peeking multiple times throughout the evening.

Image credit: The Washington Post

Image credit: The Washington Post

Who were three losers last night in the sense that they did not advance their candidacy?

Jeb Bush: The current GOP runner-up continued to struggle to answer whether the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq, and had a weak closing. Like Trump, he made no major errors, but had no memorable moments. The former governor of Florida did generate some solid interest online, but fared poorly in the online poll, coming in second from last at 2.5 percent.

Chris Christie: The bombastic governor of New Jersey had a difficult time defending his poor economic record in New Jersey, offering: “If you think it’s bad now, you should’ve seen it when I got there.” He came in last in the Drudge online poll, registering lower than his RCP average coming into the debate.

Rand Paul: Senator Rand Paul got into dust-ups with Donald Trump and Chris Christie that made him look more sour than a fighter. Despite his combativeness, he managed to garner the least time addressing the crowd of any of the candidates at 4 minutes and 51 seconds. However, he does have a faithful following and scored well in the Drudge poll, garnering 9.3 percent.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker did not turn in a particularly strong performance, but delivered a line the audience loved: “Well first off, for the cyber attack with Russia the other day, it’s sad to think right now, but probably the Russian and Chinese government know more about Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server than do the members of the United States Congress.”

Commendation must go out to Gov. Mike Huckabee, who offered up one of the most crowd-pleasing moments of the evening when he engaged in some misdirection, before delivering a wonderful punchline: “It seems like this election has been a whole lot about a person who’s very high in the polls, that doesn’t have a clue about how to govern. A person who has been filled with scandals, and who could not lead, and, of course, I’m talking about…”(Watch the video above.)

Finally, Carly Fiorina may well be on her way to prime time after her performance last night in the early GOP debate. She continued the fun afterwards with this interview with Chris Matthews. Well done!

Who do you think won the debate? Take our poll and see the results for yourself!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

You Can’t Understand Just How Crazy America Has Gone Over Trump Until You See This Map

Google Trends recently examined its own data to determine which Republican candidate was the most searched – by county – as the party’s first primary debate approaches.

Judging from Donald Trump’s strong showing in virtually all recent polls, it might be little surprise that he is likewise dominating Google searches. Seeing the color-coded evidence of this trend, however, has in itself sparked even more conversation about the brash billionaire.

Certain pockets of the nation – specifically Scott Walker’s home turf in Wisconsin – buck the national trend while entire states, like Arizona, are dominated by Trump inquirers.

Since Google Trends shared the map, dozens of Twitter users have shared their thoughts.

Some think it contains vital information for the Republican Party…

…while others were concerned Trump’s unavoidable presence in the primary is skewing results.

At least one noted that, with Trump represented by red, the map resembled another decisive political map from recent American history.

Looking back to the results of last year’s Republican congressional takeover, the comparison appears valid.

Can Donald Trump maintain his primary lead? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Typing This Racist Term Into Google Takes You To The White House

Social media is lighting up due to a post by a Howard University alum who noticed when you type “Nigga House” into Google Maps, the result is the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

According to the Huffington Post, the screenshot was first posted on GroupMe and later tweeted by Bomani Buckhalter, a Howard University alumni.

Howard is located in Washington, DC and is an historically all-black university.

“It is location based, so [for] some of the students that are not currently in D.C., the search result was different. However, even if you’re not in D.C., ‘nigga house Washington D.C.’ shows the same result,” Buckhalter told the HuffPost.

The HuffPost noted dropping the “a” and spelling the racial slur with an “er” yields the same result.

The Daily Caller contacted Google regarding the racist and bizarre result. “Some inappropriate results are surfacing in Google Maps that should not be, and we apologize for any offense this may have caused. Our teams are working to fix this issue quickly.”

As of the writing of this article, the issue had not been corrected.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The Trouble With Google Defining “Truth”

Frederic Legrand - COMEO /

With its $385 billion share value, Google, Inc. has bumped ExxonMobil to become America’s No. 2 ranked company in market capitalization.

That may not be a good thing. A February article in New Scientist announced that Google wants to rank websites based on facts, not links; and writer Hal Hodson said, “The internet is stuffed with garbage. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.”

Not surprisingly, the idea of changing page rank from popularity to “truthfulness,” based on a Google-made “knowledge vault,” did not go down well.

Fox News reported: “Google’s plan to rank websites is raising censorship concerns.” Douglass Kennedy opened with: “They say you’re entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. It’s a concept not everyone is comfortable with.”

They’re saying we’re only entitled to Google’s “facts,” which completely short-circuits how slippery “facts” can be and naively equates facts with truth. Ask any lawyer about truth.

Today’s climate wars consist of arguments between highly qualified scientists about facts that some sincerely believe are true, and some sincerely believe are false, each for solid reasons. It should be an honest debate among equals, but it’s degenerated into a power play by alarmists to kill debate to drive favored public policies that are pushed by certain politicians and their social and political base.

Google’s truth plan is not so simple. Facts are statements about existence. Statements about existence can be true or false. Existence itself – your kitchen sink or the climate or whatever – can’t be true or false; it just exists. Say anything you want about existence, and it won’t change a thing. It still just exists. Existence doesn’t give a darn what you think about it. Facts are statements about existence, and statements are always arguable.

But get everyone to believe Google Facts, and you can enforce political policies worth trillions of dollars to climate profiteers – and impose punitive, economy-strangling, job-killing regulations on millions of families.

You can see where this is going.

Imagine: Big Google the Universal Truthsayer. That’s as scary as “Mr. Dark” in Ray Bradbury’s 1962 novel Something Wicked This Way Comes, only worse. It’s the perfect machine to kill all dissent and wither the Internet into a wasteland of groupthink, susceptible to disinformation campaigns from any power center from the CIA to the rich bosses of Google, Inc. to Google’s political friends and allies.

What about those rich bosses? Google’s two co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, created a corporate foundation in 2005. The Google Foundation has 2013 assets of $72,412,693, gave grants of $7.9 million, and added $29.4 million from corporate profits.

Three of Google’s top-ten recipients are key climate alarmists: the World Wildlife Fund ($5 million); Energy Foundation ($2.6 million); and the rabidly anti-fracking Natural Resources Defense Council ($2.5 million).

NRDC is particularly influential because it also has received $3.01 million in taxpayer-financed Environmental Protection Agency grants since 2009 and has 50 employees on 40 federal advisory committees. NRDC has 33 employees on 21 EPA committees, and more in six other agencies.

The big gun in Google philanthropy is Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, whose Schmidt Family Foundation ($312 million, 2013 assets) is a major armory for groups that attack skeptics of dangerous manmade climate change. The Schmidt Foundation has given $67,147,849 in 295 grants to 180 recipients since it was endowed in 2007.     

Top Schmidt money went to Climate Central ($8.15 million), a group of activist climate scientists bolstered by $1,387,372 in EPA grants made since 2009.

Schmidt also gave $3.25 million to the Energy Foundation, which was almost superfluous since EF is practically the Mother Ship of green grants, with $1,157,046,016 given via 28,705 grants to 11,866 recipients since 1999.

Among the shadier grants in the Schmidt portfolio are anti-fracking, anti-fossil-fuel grants totaling $1.19 million to the Sustainable Markets Foundation, a shell corporation that gives no recorded grants but funnels money to climate and anti-fracking organizations such as Bill McKibben’s–so that the donors are not traceable.

Schmidt supported the far-left Tides Foundation empire with $975,000 for an anti-consumer film, “The Story of Stuff.” It gave the Sierra Club $500,000 for anti-natural gas activism, the Center for Investigative Reporting $985,000 for an anti-coal film, and so forth. Schmidt’s list goes on for pages.

With all the massive resources of wealth and power alarmists have, we must ask: Why do they give so much to destroy the climate debate and the debaters? What are they afraid of?

Perhaps they have staked so much money and reputation on manmade climate catastrophe claims that they are terrified by the prospect that inconvenient evidence, data, debate. and scientists could destroy their carefully constructed climate house of cards.

Or perhaps it’s what Eric Schmidt said at January’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, when he was asked for his prediction on the future of the web. “I will answer very simply that the Internet will disappear.”

How? The mature technology will be wearable, give us interactive homes and cars, and simply fade into the background – to become something that we all have, that most of us don’t really know (or care) very much about, as long as it can do whatever we want.

That’s the view from the pinnacle of wealth and power. On the ground, the joke is on Google.

Michael Humphrey, Forbes contributor and instructor at Colorado State University, sees younger people abandoning the public forum in favor of one-to-one connectivity. He says they don’t trust the Internet.

Why? Millennials say the Internet is cheapening language, it is stunting curiosity (because answers come so easily), we are never bored so we lose creativity, it steals innocence too quickly, it makes us impulsive with our buying and talking, it is creating narcissists, it creates filter bubbles that limit discovery, it hurts local businesses, it is filled with false evidence, it desensitizes us to tragedy, and it makes us lonely.

They want the real world.

Google that.

Ron Arnold is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and coauthor of “Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.”

Photo credit: Frederic Legrand – COMEO /

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom