So now we know why Groupon passed on Google’s offer to buy them: They never would have withstood the scrutiny from Mountain View.

Good thing for Groupon that Goldman isn’t so fastidious.

My favorite essay on artificial intelligence is this fantastic 1997 piece by Charles Krauthammer on Deep Blue. That’s not really connected to anything except to say that Siri could become very interesting some day.

But for now, she’s just really funny.

(How long to we have to wait for a mod that gives her a smoother voice and an English accent?)

Felix Salmon is concerned! Here he is bagging on a story put out by his employer, Reuters:

Reuters cannot — must not — get a reputation as a right-wing media outlet.

I can’t tell if he’s being ironical or not–it’s so hard to tell with hipster economists these days. But in case Salmon really is worried that Reuters is on the verge of becoming NewsBusters East, I hope he won’t lose too much sleep over it. Because there is absolutely no danger of anyone ever mistaking Reuters for a “right-wing” media outlet.

Rest easy, Felix!

And while we’re on the subject of porn . . .

So how ’bout that Avengers trailer? I want to love this movie six ways ’til Sunday. Whedon, Avengers, comic books, Downey. Throw in Tricia Helfer and you’ve got a product custom made to tickle all of my erogenous zones.

But the trailer leaves me a little cold, for three reasons. In ascending order of importance:

1) I liked Captain America: The First Avenger and thought it got lots of fundamental stuff about the character very right. The only places it really faltered was in the action. And the reason I think it didn’t nail the action sequences is because it misunderstood the most interesting aspect of Cap’s powerset: He’s a tactical genius. The movie hints at this, showing pre-Cap Steve studying up on tactics manual. And then by noting that the serum increased his metabolism to the point where he can’t get drunk. But they never showed that the enhanced brain activity turned Cap into the tactical equivalent of Napoleon. And that is, for me, Cap’s most interesting ability. He can see around corners, finding solutions to problems no one else can. (He’s a little like Batman in this way.)

In other words, Cap doesn’t kick ass just because he’s bigger/faster/stonger. It’s also because he’s smarter. He’s a floor general. And with all that, comes the idea that Cap is a young guy, but an old soul.  I’d hoped that Whedon would take something like this read on the character. But instead he looks kind of petulant, the way he gets chesty with Downey’s Tony Stark.

(2) If Avengers is going to work, I suspect it’ll do so by exploiting Cap-Stark tension. They show some of that in the trailer, but none of it seems very compelling. I’d think that, on this score, they’d want to get the punchiest stuff out front.

(3) Scarlett Johanson is, again, horribly miscast as Black Widow. At least three times in the trailer–twice in action sequences–she’s essentially posing. She crouches all fancy. She flicks her hair back. She looks like she’s trying to sell a Wu Ping move. I love her as an actor–love her. Think she’s great. But she does not have the physical presence for this role.

But worse–the thing that really bothers me–is that the kind of physicality on display is the kind of simple, off-the-shelf, comic book stuff that we should no longer have to endure in a comic book movie. It’s fine for Thor to pose and strut because he’s Thor and that’s what he does. But Natalia Romanov should be more like Jason Bourne. What makes her character work, both physically and emotionally, is that she just kind of moves through space like a shark. Totally decisive; pure economy of force. Compact and brutal. No flourishes.

Of course this is just a trailer. Of course Whedon isn’t showing his hand. Of course it’s not fair to judge a film by its trailer. And I hope the movie is great. But in terms of the aesthetic, and what it means for character, I’d hoped for more in this first real look at what they’ve got.

Even though it’s a February release, sign me up. Now.

The Denton Empire has now justified its existence:

• You can do the same thing with any iPhone for $79, and most iPods for $69.

• Apple will replace an iPhone in almost any condition (the only exception being for devices that are literally broken into little pieces, or ones that are missing parts) for $199, even if it’s liquid damaged or cracked.

• Apple will replace any OOW damaged iPad for around half the price.

• On an iPhone 4, if the back glass is cracked, an Apple employee can replace it for $29 in only about 5 minutes, also not a bad idea if your camera lens is scratched beyond repair

• If you restore your device before bringing it in, there are no usage records saved and they have to take your word for it that the battery is defective.

I’m getting enough email about Perry that I want to, again, clarify something: I’m not in the tank for the guy. I’m not even sure I like him and I’m certainly not sure that he’d be a good president. Let me put it this way: I was never very impressed by George W. Bush and the best line about Perry is that he’s the guy W. was always pretending to be.

People seem to confuse what I think about Perry’s prospects with what I, personally, want to see happen. (In much the same way some people thought that I was a Federer hater just because I realized his eclipse had begun. I doubt you’ll find anyone who loves Federer more than I do, and I hate watching him in decline. But that doesn’t mean that he’s not declining.)

And so: Despite everything, I still like Perry’s chances.

Now, one big thing happened, which I certainly didn’t expect: I thought Perry would unite the insurgent and establishment wings of the party. Not only has that not taken place (yet?), but the opposite occurred. The establishment pushed back against Perry, hard. Like, Palin-in-2009 hard.

But the big question is whether establishment types (both in the actual establishment and the voters who reflect their thinking) are enough to win the nomination today. I think that’s also a very open question.

I’d remind people that for the last two cycles, everything we knew about the nomination fight changed drastically and quickly in the lead up to the actual voting. Dean imploded. Kerry used Iowa to catapult himself away from the entire field. (It helped that he had the money and organization to take advantage of the win.) Huckabee came out of nowhere in Iowa, and Romney was never able to make the sale in any of the other important early states. Obama used the split anti-Hillary vote in Iowa to drive the early part of his march through the caucuses. (If he loses Iowa, I think it’s an open question whether or not he wins the nomination.)

I mention all of this not to say that Perry is Kerry (or Obama, or anyone else) but just to remind people that with three months before the voting, I think fundamentals are more important considerations than a tight-grouping in the polls.

So what are the fundamentals of the race that (for now) we know?

* Romney has firmly secured the GOP establishment, as he did in 2008.

* Romney is an improved candidate, but is still the guy with a very poor electoral record. This doesn’t mean voters will never warm to him. But I’d like to see it happen before I’ll believe in it.

* Supporting the idea that voters are resisting Romney is the pinging around of poll numbers among the other candidates. First Bachman. Then Perry. Now Cain. Clearly there is a substantial anti-Romney vote that’s coalescing, breaking up, and then re-forming around other candidates.

* The question is, will these voters give up the ghost and sign up with Romney at some point? Maybe. But maybe not. In 2003 people thought, My God, the Democrats can’t be crazy enough to nominate someone like Dean! And despite Dean’s lead, they were right. It seems entirely possible that, like the anti-Dean votes in 2004, the anti-Romney votes are eventually going to stop being split among Santorum, Bachman, Gingrich, Perry, and Cain and coagulate around one of them. Of that group, Perry has the money and the infrastructure to best take advantage of such a move.

* That doesn’t mean it will happen, of course. But I keep coming back to this: There must be a reason why Republican voters haven’t rallied around Romney the way they did George W. Bush in 1999. Remember, there was an anti-Bush vote then, too. But it was never substantial enough to challenge the front-runner. Bush was up over the 40 percent mark by summer of 1999 and was at 62 percent by October 1999. If Romney had those kinds of numbers, he’d be unassailable. But I think it’s telling that, despite his money, his organization, his establishment backing, and the fact that he’s been running the longest–he hasn’t been able to get over the mid-20s. If you like Romney’s chances, you have to have an explanation for why this is.

* Remember: Even Bush, with his 40-point lead, got dragged into a dogfight with John McCain–who was in third place until late fall of 1999. Why? Because one of the axioms of American politics is this: All races tighten.

* None of this means that I want Perry to win or that I want Romney to lose. (The only thing I really want is for Mitch Daniels to suddenly jump in and ride to the nomination. And that ain’t happening.) What it means is that I believe Romney has structural weaknesses and has not been seriously challenged by his opponents yet; that early momentum from Iowa has proved very powerful; that Perry has positional and political strengths (to go along with his obvious weaknesses in the debates and on immigration); and that a 7-point gap between lead candidates right now is not dispositive.

* I still think it more than an even-money proposition that someone other than Romney will be the nominee; and of those alternatives, I’d give Perry the best odds. (Though probably all of them–even Santorum and Huntsman–will get a second look by the time New Hampshire rolls around.)

I just found out that long-time Galley Friend Alana Hurley writes a blog. It’s mostly thoughts about books (she’s one of those people who reads about a book a day) with the occasional movie or TV thought thrown in. The reason I mention it to you, gentle reader, is because she’s crazy funny. You will be entertained. Sample awesome from her review of Sheri Holman’s Witches on the Road Tonight:

So, to quote a certain failed Congressional wannabe, I am not a witch, nor have I ever been one. Right? Because they’re all, we’re going to meet over here at midnight, and I’m eh, no, I go to bed at 9:30. The supernatural life is not good for morning people like me.

And anyway, I’m not sure what exactly is useful about being a witch. Flying around would be fun, I suppose, if you’re not prone to motion sickness, but the traditional witchy things – withering crops, spoiling milk, generally being a nuisance – seem more trouble than they’re worth.

It’s wonderful, light-touch stuff. Enjoy.