Do you have a problem with Michael Bloomberg giving $50,000,000 to promote anti-gun politicians?

LK

Other people here have already pointed these issues out separately but I'd like to combine them.

I don't think that anyone can honestly deny how NBC's portrayal of Sarah Palin had a tremendous impact on how the 2008 campaign ended. To this day, a lot of people still confuse Tina Fey's awesome satire for actual Palin statements. Bill Maher, in addition to his million dollar donation to a PAC for Obama's benefit, has constantly given media exposure to politicians who represent his point of view.

Do you have a plan to limit the effect that non-advertising content has on elections?

LK

Either they used a couple orbits around the Earth to get a slingshot, or to save the most fuel or used Lagrange Points as way points. That is supposed to be the most efficient in the way of fuel.

So how is a laser like a goldfish?

Think of it like nuclear fusion. Once you get critical mass it is a self-sustaining reaction. Einstein is credited with once calling compound interest the most powerful force. Once you get past the hump of earning more than you spend, short of a catastrophe you're just going to get richer. It is the nature of capitalism. Marx and Engals knew this.

The trick is getting to that point. Most people don't make it because when they make more they immediately spend more.

It isn't baffling one you realise it is the nature of the system and doesn't require the rich to do anything.

s/intent/intend

Also, either the author of the article has a listening comprehension problem or the assitant professor quoted in the article has a reading comprehension problem.

Look at Turing's original article. It says that the imitation game is played between a man (A), a woman (B), and a player C. C has to decide among A and B who is a man and who is a woman. Now, the _man_ is replaced is a computer and we ask if C will perform as well or poorly as before.

So in Turing's version we have a computer A pretending to be a woman to C, and a woman trying to convince C that she is the woman.

Turning's original test _does not_ have a man and a computer pretending to be a woman to a judge.

Those options aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they often go hand in hand.

I try not to feed the trolls, but I just can't pass this one up:

"An order of magnitude more? 200 dollars? Really?"

Apparently you're too dumb to comprehend that he very clearly stated that $20 is *more* than the gas cost by an order of magnitude. That means he's spending $2 in gas for the trip. At the current ~$4/gal with what passes for an "efficient" vehicle in the US, that puts his round trip at ~12.5mi, or roughly 6 miles from the airport.

The depth of your illiteracy truly astounds me.

There are 7 billion people on earth but only one tallest person. Clearly the odds of finding a tallest being on any planet is 1:7_billion.

The point of parent is that if the intelligent "us" were not us, someone else would have evolved to be as intelligent. You can argue that point but don't argue probabilities based on 1 out of however many being intelligent. Two intelligent species would have competed and one would be killed off so far in earth's history.

That's a popular canard but it's not always true. Intensity beats extensity, every time.

This is an example of what I mean, Eric Cantor just lost his primary to a no-name Tea Partier that he outspent 27 to 1.

In local, state and national elections the ability to motivate people is what wins elections.

In 2008, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani out-fundraised McCain by 7 million and 4 million dollars respectively and they both lost.

The Democrats were even more interesting on this front. First when he beat the Clinton machine in the 2008 primary. His campaign employed analytics on a level that hadn't been seen before, especially for a political nobody who was barely on the national stage for 4 years. Hillary out-funraised Barack by over 11 million dollars and he soundly beat her.

Obama out-spent McCain by almost 400 million dollars and had it not been for his running mate, McCain would have faced an embarrassing loss in the general election. Beyond that money, Obama had the organization to win.

Obama out-spent Romney by 250 million dollars. Had the election taken place a year later, his victory wouldn't have been assured. Despite a quarter of a billion dollar advantage, the incumbent nearly lost.

The thread that unites all of these cases is that in every instance, the candidate with the most energetic following won. Money helps but it's only the losers who complain when the game that they chose to play doesn't turn out their way.

LK

OK. Fair enough.

Then, you're not really a Libertarian. Your association with any business is purely voluntary, absent any government coercion.

If the government didn't have so much power, there'd be no incentive for businesses to subvert it for their own goals.

LK

Technically, our current system is "voluntary" as well.

See what happens if you don't volunteer to pay.

LK

Look at what's going on around you. It's slowly but surely coming away from the realm of Alex Jones and the like but it's obvious that law enforcement is gearing up for something.

There is something that they expect to happen in the near future that makes them think they'll need weapons of war.

LK