Gordon the robot has a biological brain made of rat neurons

Scientists have created the first rat cyborg.

Every time the robot nears an object, signals are directed to stimulate the brain by means of the electrodes, the researchers explained in a statement released today by the University of Reading in England. In response, the brain’s output drives the robot’s wheels left and right, so that it moves around in an attempt to avoid hitting objects.

The robot has no additional control from a human or a computer, the scientists state. Its sole means of control is from its own brain.

“This new research is tremendously exciting as firstly the biological brain controls its own moving robot body, and secondly it will enable us to investigate how the brain learns and memorizes its experiences,” said the university’s Kevin Warwick of the School of Systems Engineering. “This research will move our understanding forward of how brains work, and could have a profound effect on many areas of science and medicine.”

Factor in Moore’s Law. I am envisioning ratbots providing airport security screening as one possible application. Only a few years away. TSA cyborgs with a prediliction towards stealing your cheese will decide whether or not you get to travel. No worries, they’ll have a badge to make it all seem more normal to you.

Your papers please: Fliers without ID placed on TSA list

So what exactly is the legal status of the nearly 20,000 people who forgot or simply didn’t want to present ID in order to fly?

The TSA began storing the information in late June, tracking many people who said they had forgotten their driver’s license or passport at home. The database has 16,500 records of such people and is open to law enforcement agencies, according to the TSA.

Asked about the program, TSA chief Kip Hawley told USA TODAY in an interview Tuesday that the information helps track potential terrorists who may be “probing the system” by trying to get though checkpoints at various airports.

Do officials and authorities consider these people to be troublemakers? Terrorists? Future felons? After all, according to Mr. Hawley, it is likely many of these people were “probing the system.” The usual response is that government bureaucrats will “probe their systems.”

Later Tuesday, Hawley called the newspaper to say the agency is changing its policy effective today and will stop keeping records of people who don’t have ID if a screener can determine their identity. Hawley said he had been considering the change for a month. The names of people who did not have identification will soon be expunged, he said.

Civil liberties advocates have been fearful that the database includes passengers who have done nothing wrong yet may face extra scrutiny at airports or questioning by authorities investigating possible terrorism. “This information comes back to haunt people,” said Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Frankly, there is no security oriented reason to present ID in order to fly. If you’ve been physically screened then you present very little security threat once you have boarded the plane. Knowing who you are serves no security purpose. Should you decide to cause trouble on the flight, it is very easy to land the plane and find out who you are for the purpose of putting you into the “bad people” databases that have sprung up in the last 30 years almost as fast as tax rates have increased.

I think it is great that the TSA has the common sense to realize that lack of ID doesn’t automatically represent a threat to airport or in-flight security. Now when in the hell will they develop a screening program so I no longer have to wait in the retarded lines and go through the idiotic boarding process? It’s been seven years since the towers went down. How long does it take to identify the 99.89% of passengers who represent a zero risk of terrorism? Is Homeland Security just a big jobs creation program or is it a massive exercise in permanent stupidity?

Dear Mr. President, please tell the TSA that it has limited authority

Author’s Note: I’m a member of Gun Owners of America (someone tell them to modernize their web site). I’m also a non-commissioned officer in the Georgia National Guard, sworn to defend the Constitution. I trust my fellow law abiding citizens, whether they have ever worn the uniform or not. The current “dialogue” about whether or not CCW holders and private citizens should be able to pass through airports conducting their daily business while carrying guns is puerile. The TSA is an inherently bureaucratic organization that will naturally protect the bureaucrat class and hoard power to that class. Banning private weapons in public airports is unconstitutional. Since I’m sworn to defend the document, and have a great deal of respect for the ideas that spawned the document, I sent this letter to the President.

Dear Mr. President:

Law abiding civic minded individuals like me are under increasing assault by bureaucrats in this country and it is high time that someone stood up for us in government. I am a citizen soldier with years of firearms training yet with each passing year I find more and more hurdles put in place by bureaucrats designed to discourage and intimidate me when it comes to the responsible use of firearms in my daily life.

The August 7 issue of USA Today reports that the TSA is considering letting airports across the country ban firearms in areas that currently allow for self-defense. What’s at stake here is not the ability to take guns past surveillance points. What’s at stake is the right of self-defense outside of these areas — especially where drivers are either dropping off or picking up passengers. In other words, drivers who have permits are the ones who would be affected the most because they would now have to leave their guns at home — thus contradicting the very reason they got a concealed carry permit in the first place… the fact that they wanted to carry their guns outside of the house. I hope that you will rein in the rogue TSA and prevent them from making such a foolish decision — if not for the Second Amendment, then for the sake of your own administration and party.

You must understand how harmful it would be to impose a brand new gun ban in an election year, when the campaigns of people like Al Gore and John Kerry have amply demonstrated that the gun rights issue can cost a party dearly.

If the TSA is allowed to arbitrarily ban firearms in the manner it is considering doing so, then law abiding citizens will have two choices – break the law when traveling through airports, or face the choice of being disarmed by a bureaucrat who is highly unlikely to appear when a firearm might be needed in self-defense.

Sincerely, SGT Trevor L Snyder, Georgia National Guard

The bottom line in regards to weapons carry in an airport is the mentality of the people carrying the weapons. I am much less likely to go crazy in an airport with a gun than most people because I have what I believe is a correct mentality about when it is appropriate to use firearms (in self-defense). As a combat veteran and a regular shooter, if I did decide to engage in a massacre at an airport, the laws and rules surrounding the facility would be completely irrelevant because of the change in mentality. Mentality cannot be legislated or otherwise regulated by a bureaucrat.

A discussion of Obamaland tax rates

Soon to be President Barack Obama has a plan that involves how much of your money the government will take away, by force if necessary. Some people won’t pay anything. Some people will pay a lot. The plan, like those that have come before it – the only constant being that tax rates have grown vastly since World War I – is based not on common sense or fairness, but on economic voodoo.

Senator Barack Obama declared recently that he wants to “reform our tax code so that it rewards work and not just wealth.” We think that is a great goal if it means a simple tax system with low marginal tax rates. Unfortunately, a close inspection of Obama’s proposals reveals something disquieting: he would raise marginal tax rates for many middle-income taxpayers, a bad move for anyone seeking to promote economic growth.

Although Obama is offering a new series of tax breaks, they undermine rather than improve economic incentives. First, whether or not you get those breaks will depend on your income. In Washington, taking away tax breaks as families work harder to make more money is called a “phase-out.” Economists have a different name for it—we call it a tax. Reducing a person’s tax credit as his income goes up also reduces his incentive to earn more income.

The keys to our current tax system are manifold. Although touted as voluntary, our tax system is based on force. If you don’t pay whatever the government determines you should pay then force comes into play. First you are threatened. Then your wages are garnished. If you continue to try and avoid paying whatever “fair share” the bureaucrats say you owe the rest of the country, you’ll end up in jail, with all your real property forfeit to the Fed. If you ask questions about the laws that entitle the government to seize however much of your money it wants, you’ll soon find yourself surrounded by armed goons.

Just ask Edward and Elaine Brown of New Hampshire. You’ll have to visit them in jail to do so. The couple is currently sentenced to 63 months in federal pound me in the ass prison for refusing to participate in the “voluntary” tax system because the government wouldn’t answer their tax questions honestly.

The law they were accused of violating was the personal income tax law and the Browns asked to see the law before they handed over any more money. Their quest for proof of the existence of such a law began over 10 years ago when they first found out the income tax was being misapplied to include taxing all Americans labor. Once the browns realized they, along with the rest of us, were being defrauded of our hard worked labor by the irs they decided to make a stand and challenge the government, not only for themselves, but for the rest of the people in this country, so that they also will be made aware of the terrible injustice being carried out on each of us every day.

You may agree or disagree with the Browns methodology. That’s your right. However, I would strongly encourage you to take a few moments to understand how the upcoming Obama presidency is likely to affect your pocketbook.

While Obama has publicly embraced a tax rate of 40 percent for couples earning over $350,000, his tax policies would result in a staggering 45 percent effective marginal rate in the $110,000 to $120,000 income range for this family. That is 11 percentage points higher than under current law.

Here’s a graph:

Bear in mind that if you ask to see the current tax law, no one will be able to show you anything that a) is Constitutional or b) vaguely resembles a coherent, interpretable English document. The current federal tax code is purposely obtuse and also completely against the highest law of the land, the United States Constitution. At least, that is my opinion.

One question I’ve always asked those who feel it is OK for the federal government to skim money off of every paycheck I’ve ever earned is: if God himself only requires 10% why is it OK for people I’ve never met to take more than that? No one has ever given me an answer that made any sense.

Fighting the tax man may be difficult and dangerous, but it is also a moral imperative. I have the audacity of hope on my side.

When the solution is worse than the problem

Scientists sometimes introduce a predator into an ecosystem in order to take care of a pest that is threatening say, the potato crop. These experiments often go wrong – the predator turns out to be more dangerous than the pest. Social engineers do the same thing as scientists, except with human beings. One example is China’s one child policy to control overpopulation. The jury is still out on whether or not that policy will benefit the world or China in the long term. It certainly doesn’t benefit human freedom.

In the United States, our greatest social engineering experiment is something most people called The War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is actually a war on freedom, when thought about literally. It is also an experiment in introducing a predator to take care of a pest. What do you do when the predator you introduced to take care of the pest turns out to be much worse than the pest?

WASHINGTON (Map, News) – The violent assault on Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo’s home late last month was certainly not the first bungled raid by a government SWAT team, but the bad publicity it generated should make it the last time these trigger-happy squads target innocent civilians. Tracking a 32-pound package of marijuana that had been addressed to Calvo’s wife, Trinity Tomsic, Prince George’s sheriff’s deputies forcibly entered the mayor’s home on July 29 and killed his two dogs before handcuffing him and his mother-in-law.

But like so many other SWAT team raids across the country, this one turned out to be a big mistake. After reviewing the case, State’s Attorney Glenn Ivey acknowledged that the Calvos were victims of a multistate drug ring that used innocent people’s names and addresses to hide shipments of contraband drugs. But the mayor and his family were also victims of a home invasion by the SWAT team, based entirely on what turned out to be a false premise.

Some of you who read these words may want to argue with me. The police are here to help us you’ll say. Yes, some of them help some people some of the time. Unfortunately the helping is on the decline and the abuse is on the uptick. Survey 100,000 random citizens of the United States before the so called drug war began on their level of trust in the police. That would probably be a pretty high number. Survey 100,000 random citizens now. Most likely the numbers will be pretty low. Chances are that a lot of these people know someone who has been locked up for a consensual non-violent crime. You only have to be beaten up once by uniformed authorities to develop a lifelong distrust of all authorities. You only have to be locked up for a few months to learn to lie to the cops when they come around. After all, they are not your friends. They protect and serve only themselves. That is the lesson many have learned.

Public servants do not shoot family dogs. Peace officers do not initiate violence, they are supposed to prevent it. SWAT teams should be used so sparingly that when they are used, people are amazed. Instead, they are used so frequently it is almost like a car alarm going off – no one pays any attention. We’ve learned to ignore the sights and sounds of our freedom going away.

When the men in masks come to your neighborhood with concrete barriers and rolls of concertina wire just remember that they are there to protect you from yourself. If your family dog gets shot or you get beaten while trying to stop them from raping your daughter or your wife it is your own fault for questioning the authorities. They are just here to deal with pesky drug addicts and you got in the way.

Hmm. Maybe you shouldn’t have been so willing to give away the Constitutional rights of others. Maybe it is time to stand up and let your government know that you aren’t going to tolerate this sort of behavior.