Mainly because Gingrich has self-destructive tendencies, destroying things when he is given power over them. I don't understand what you mean by "connected to reality" though.

There will be next year, or maybe the year after. It's just a matter of prioritizing it.

I really think it will be a long time before AI can even remotely guess whether a target is friend or foe.

My reasoning is this: in the military, you don't even trust soldiers with live ammo unless they are on a mission, because they are going to make mistakes. AI is not nearly to the quality level where it can make decisions better than even a stoned soldier.......

The Wikipedia entry you linked to says it is under control of a human operator.

We're not going to have a weapon that can do both of those for a long time. Even drones aren't really autonomous, they're just remote-controlled.

The best way to replenish an aquifer is through flood irrigation.

OK, that's not really much more interesting than land mines, is it?

I don't know. The Wall Street Journal had an editorial not long ago suggesting she is significantly more 'liberal' and 'progressive' than her husband was in office.

The president writes the budget.

So, you ARE saying that GDP is a reasonable way of distributing water.

I don't think they are anymore. Hillary is looking a lot like Romney did last election.......not too great, but the party couldn't find anyone to beat him (although a Gengrich campaign would have been much more interesting, it would have been awful if he'd won).

Hillary looks beatable.

Clinton countered that by realizing people care about a balanced budget, and balancing it himself. That's why he's a clever politician, and it's why he stayed in office.

I was thinking that too, but his recent points on abortion were politically shrewd. I used to consider him a joke candidate, but if he's shown he knows how to manage the press, and if he keeps it up he has a reasonably good chance.

Myself, disliking all candidates (merely because anyone who wants to be president is slightly insane), I'd like to see Jed Bush run against Hillary Clinton, just for the pure absurdity of the situation. We'd have a Bush who didn't vote to invade Iraq running against a democrat who did.

So......is your point that we should use 'contribution to GDP' as the method for allocating water? Otherwise I'm not sure what you're saying.

Also, you are using a different method for making the calculation, including indirect effects. If you're going to calculate it like that, then contribution of farmers to GDP is much higher too, so fix your numbers.