question:You are a helpful assistant, who always provide explanation. Think like you are answering to a five year old. News article: This was one the polls got right. Heading into Ohio, various surveys showed the race there as a statistical tie, and it did not disappoint:Mitt Romney won, but just narrowly, over Rick Santorum, by a single percentage point. Text Size - + reset Winners & Losers in 60 seconds And that wasn’t even the whole Super Tuesday story. Here are POLITICO’s five takeaways from the 10-state political extravaganza: 1. Win, no bounce, repeat, continued It’s better to win ugly than to lose pretty, especially in a key fall battleground state like Ohio. But the victory that Mitt Romney eked out Tuesday night over Rick Santorum in Ohio was far closer than his campaign would have liked. With six states captured on the night — Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Ohio, Vermont and Virginia — the front-runner is poised to take a majority of the 437 delegates up for grabs on Super Tuesday. He remains the delegate leader, and he scored big in Massachusetts, Virginia and Idaho on that front. (See also: 2012 delegate tracker) And yet. Romney, as we’ve written before, is likely heading into another bounce-free news cycle. The former Massachusetts governor’s campaign and its backers had hoped to use a strong night to start making the case that it’s time to wind this down, and his election night speech, delivered from Boston, was supposed to convey the aura of a nominee-in-waiting. But in the end, he underperformed. He does not head into Wednesday with the spin on his side, and his campaign has done little to finesse expectations throughout this race. The muddled results Tuesday — Romney’s cache of victories, Newt Gingrich’s win in Georgia and Santorum’s surprisingly strong clinch in Tennessee accompanied by wins in Oklahoma and North Dakota — are going to do little to bring an immediate end to the primary. The Ohio exit polls showed Romney is still struggling with working-class voters and evangelicals, as well as “very conservative” voters. He and his supporting super PAC also outspent Santorum 4 to 1 for a win of less than 15,000 votes. Losing Tennessee by a wide margin, after his campaign had hoped he would be competitive there, was also a blow: Had he taken the state, he could have essentially argued that, coupled with his Ohio win, the race was effectively over. But he continues to have trouble in the South, traditional Republican territory. Romney now heads into a less-than-friendly patch of contests, with Kansas, Alabama and Mississippi up in the next week. That’s going to be a tough narrative for him to overcome. Worse, it will generate ongoing headlines about a failure to close the deal, even though most people — a majority of primary voters — agree that Romney is the eventual nominee. ||||| Mitt Romney’s margins in Michigan and Ohio — the Associated Press has called Ohio for Mr. Romney, although The New York Times has not yet – weren’t much different from one another: 3.2 percentage points in the former state, and 1.0 percentage points in the latter. But the benefit of winning a state is mostly symbolic, especially in a state like Ohio which divides most of its delegates by Congressional district and the remainder proportionately. And the aesthetics of Ohio and Michigan were much different, although for somewhat arbitrary reasons. Michigan counted its vote very quickly, and Mr. Romney led almost the whole way along — often by slightly larger than the 3.2 point margin that he wound up with. Ohio counted its vote slowly, and Mr. Romney trailed for most of the evening, sometimes by as many as 3 or 4 points. In Michigan, Mr. Romney’s win came by a slightly larger margin than polls expected, but the difference was in well within most survey’s margin of error. In Ohio, Mr. Romney leads by a slightly smaller margin than some polls called for, but the polling average was nevertheless very close. Mr. Romney’s narrow win in Michigan came at a time when his campaign seemed to be struggling. His probable win in Ohio came when he seemed to have the momentum and expectations were higher. In Michigan, there was nothing else to look at except for that state’s results — that and Arizona, where Mr. Romney did very well. But on Tuesday night, Mr. Romney had lost four other states by the time that the A.P. called Ohio, changing the context that Ohio was viewed in. Should any of this matter? In my view, it probably shouldn’t. In fact, I tend to find Mr. Romney’s one-point lead in Ohio more impressive than his three-point win in Michigan since the latter was his home state — something that is probably worth at least several points to him. But, factors like these do affect the way that the results are reported upon and can therefore affect the momentum of the race, for better or for worse. — NATE SILVER ||||| John GilmoreArchive-It Partner Since: Apr, 2007Organization Type: Other InstitutionsOrganization URL: http://www.toad.com John Gilmore is a private individual who cares about archiving the Internet for future generations. He is the first individual to join the Archive-It program, as a partner with the Internet Archive, to collect and index documents of interest. Mr. Gilmore also co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation. ||||| ATLANTA -- Well, that was unusually inconclusive. Or was it? Yes, it was. 1) Mitt Romney has the same rural problem that Barack Obama does. Here's the map of Ohio from last night's primary. Here's the map from 2008, an unusually good Democratic year. Both candidates figured out a pretty simple lesson: Get more votes where people live, don't lose too many votes where people don't. But a county map of the primary so far, even if it excludes Missouri, reveals only urban and suburban areas breaking for Romney. The rural areas that build up any eventual nominee's margin -- all for the other guys. 2) Ron Paul has hit his ceiling. The pre-Tuesday campaign schedule for the Paul campaign pointed reporters to the states where he might win. Idaho's low-attendence caucus. Alaska's low-attendence caucus. North Dakota's low-attendence caucus, where Paul spent election night. In Alaska, where Paul got 2,004 caucus votes in 2008, he drew more than 1,000 to two stump speeches. He had the state to himself. And... he edged up to 3,175 votes, coming in third place. Yes, the "win"-driven coverage of the primary is a little silly. Paul won delegates in all of yesterday's caucus states, Vermont, and Virgina. But he's now averaged around 11 percent of the vote in primaries and 21 percent and caucuses. As he stays in, and as, in April, we move to a winner-take-all process, he's hitting the natural limits of his support. In Missouri, Santorum could win a one-on-one beauty contest with Romney, with Paul taking votes on the side. In Virginia, Paul could only win 40 percent and one district. 3) Newt Gingrich owns the deep south. He won all but three counties in Georgia, just as he'd won all but three counties in South Carolina. When Florida voted, he won all but three counties in the panhandle, losing two of them (Oskaloosa and Bay) by less than 100 votes. This is one of Mitt Romney's best prospects for March: Gingrich is in a good position to win Alabama and Mississippi next week, further muddling the "Santorum, conservative champion!" story. 4) Mitt Romney's a good closer. The frontrunner's strategy from state to state looks a bit like Galactus's strategy for planet-devouring: Move in, absorb everything. Restore Our Future is his Silver Surfer, softening up the terrain and warning of doom. So in Tennessee, Romney spent money late, made one appearance, and won voters who decided in the last few days, 30-28 -- he lost the state overall, 37-28. In Ohio, where he defeated Rick Santorum by one point, he won last-few-day-voters 43-37. But Santorum had once led by around 10 points in an average of polls. When Romney needs to dispatch Santorum, or he needs to cut into his delegate advantage -- as long as Newt Gingrich is in the race, he can do it. 5) Caucuses reveal that the base is cold on Romney. Here are four numbers: 37%, 45%, 60%, 41%. Here are four more: 24%, 32%, 35%, 17%. Those are the numbers for Rommey, respectively, from the 2008 caucuses in North Dakota, Alaska, Colorado, and Minnesota, and from the 2012 caucuses in the same states. ||||| Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, takes in the applause of the crowd as he address a crowd during the North Dakota caucus Tuesday, March 6, 2012, in Fargo, N.D. (AP Photo/Charles... (Associated Press) Republicans in 10 states weighed in on the GOP presidential nomination race in its busiest day yet. Mitt Romney won six states, Rick Santorum clinched three and Newt Gingrich prevailed in one. And along the way, clues were gleaned from the results about the path ahead. A look at what we learned: ___ REPUBLICANS AREN'T HOT ON ANYONE It's almost like a bad version of Goldilocks. Nobody is just right. Listen to voters _ in person and in exit polls _ and it's pretty clear Republicans aren't all that hot on any of the candidates. Only in three states did most people say they strongly supported the contender they backed, nowhere reaching 6 in 10. In the four other states where polling was conducted Tuesday, less than half expressed that degree of support for their candidate. Even so, Republicans will eventually support the nominee. They always do. Just look at how the grumbling over John McCain faded four years ago when voters were given the choice of begrudgingly supporting the Arizona senator _ seen as a moderate _ or backing Barack Obama. ___ GINGRICH ISN'T DEAD But that doesn't mean he can fully come back a third time. Until Tuesday, the former House speaker hadn't won since South Carolina on Jan. 21. He had declared Georgia a must-win state and essentially camped out there for the past week. Gingrich, who represented Georgia for years in the U.S. House, made the state his firewall in hopes of winning a rationale to continue his bid. It worked. At least for the moment. "The media said, `Oh, I guess this is over, finally,'" Gingrich told supporters. "But you all said no." Now the question is whether his backers open their wallets to prove he can compete. Underscoring the urgency, ally Herman Cain was soliciting donations even before Gingrich had gone to bed. ___ ORGANIZATION MATTERS Unless it doesn't. On one hand, Santorum should have been embarrassed in Ohio. His shoestring, scattershot campaign didn't collect enough signatures to appear on the ballot in the Steubenville area, a rural, conservative part of the state where his message on social issues _ and his kinship with a region that neighbors his home state of Pennsylvania _ should have given him an advantage. And that meant he ceded delegates from that region. Yet, Santorum still managed to make it a close race with Romney, and he won at least some delegates. And Romney just eked out a win, not the decisive victory he had sought. The results wouldn't force Santorum from the campaign. If anything, Santorum's almost-win _ with scant organization _ foreshadows problems for Romney in contests ahead. ___ RICH PEOPLE LIKE ROMNEY Got money? Chances are, you voted for Romney. In the seven states that had exit polls, Romney _ a millionaire many times over who has struggled to connect with working-class voters _ was the preferred candidate of the wealthiest voters. In Ohio and Tennessee, Romney won about 4 in 10 voters who reported a household income of more than 200,000. In Georgia, about a third of voters with a family income greater than 100,000 backed Romney. In his home state of Massachusetts, about three-quarters of voters making more than 200,000 supported him. Santorum, in turn, did well among less affluent voters. In Ohio and Tennessee, he claimed about 4 in 10 voters reporting an income between 50,000 and 99,000. In Oklahoma, he won about 4 in 10 voters who made less than 50,000. ___ SOUTHERNERS DON'T LIKE ROMNEY Look where Romney is winning. It's not in the South. Romney does well in the Northeast and Midwest, but he is running weak below the Mason-Dixon line. South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee _ and, to the west, Oklahoma _ all have rejected Romney. The upcoming calendar gives him scant reason to be optimistic: Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana all have contests this month. Sure, Romney won Florida, but that is hardly a Southern state by tradition. And Virginia was a contest between only Romney and Paul _ hardly a real choice among rank-and-file Republicans who see the Texas congressman as outside the mainstream of conservative positions. Can Romney become the GOP nominee if he can't win in the party's only regional stronghold? ___ OHIO IS WHERE IT'S AT Step aside, Florida. Ohio remains the ultimate down-to-the-wire presidential state. Ohio is a microcosm of the country. It has urban centers and sprawling farms. It has diversity in both race and income. It has conservative strongholds in the southwest corner, where Sen. Rob Portman rallied his neighbors to deliver votes for Romney. It has liberal bastions in the northeast, near Cleveland, where moderates sometimes defect to Republicans. Its eastern and southern edges are Appalachia and tend to be filled with more swing voters. In the end, Romney won the state that no Republican has ever lost on a successful White House run. ___ PAUL A NONFACTOR Another primary night went by without Paul winning a primary. Sure, he picked up delegates and he increased the chances he will have a say in deciding the party's platform come the convention in Tampa. But he isn't posting the wins he needs if he's going to be the late-surging nominee. Romney offered faint praise to Paul "for his steadfast commitment to our Constitution and his strong support almost everywhere you go. He's got good followers." Just not enough so far, it seems. ||||| What is a shorter version of the above article?

question:You are a helpful assistant, who always provide explanation. Think like you are answering to a five year old. Produce a sentence which mentions all of these concepts: cloud, lapse, move, skyscraper

question:You are an AI assistant, who knows every language and how to translate one language to another. Given a task, you explain in simple steps what the task is asking, any guidelines that it provides. You solve the task and show how you used the guidelines to solve the task. Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given text for US Congressional and California state bills, your task is to generate a summary for this bill. Problem:SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 1997''. SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT. (a) Exclusions From Definition.--Section 3(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended in the matter following subparagraph (C), by striking ``such term excludes'' and all that follows through the period and inserting the following: ``such term excludes (i) any committee that is composed wholly of full-time, or permanent part-time, officers or employees of the Federal Government, and (ii) any committee that is created by the National Academy of Sciences or the National Academy of Public Administration.''. (b) Requirements Relating to the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration.--Such Act is further amended by redesignating section 15 as section 16 and inserting after section 14 the following new section: ``requirements relating to the national academy of sciences and the national academy of public administration ``Sec. 15. (a) In General.--An agency may not use any advice or recommendation provided by the National Academy of Sciences or National Academy of Public Administration that was developed by use of a committee created by that academy under an agreement with an agency, unless-- ``(1) the committee was not subject to any actual management or control by an agency or an officer of the Federal Government; ``(2) in the case of a committee created after the date of the enactment of the Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 1997, the membership of the committee was appointed in accordance with the requirements described in subsection (b)(1); and ``(3) in developing the advice or recommendation, the academy complied with-- ``(A) subsection (b)(2) through (6), in the case of any advice or recommendation provided by the National Academy of Sciences; or ``(B) subsection (b)(2) and (5), in the case of any advice or recommendation provided by the National Academy of Public Administration. ``(b) Requirements.--The requirements referred to in subsection (a) are as follows: ``(1) The Academy shall determine and provide public notice of the names and brief biographies of individuals that the Academy appoints or intends to appoint to serve on the committee. The Academy shall determine and provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment on such appointments before they are made or, if the Academy determines such prior comment is not practicable, in the period immediately following the appointments. The Academy shall make its best efforts to ensure that (A) no individual appointed to serve on the committee has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed, unless such conflict is promptly and publicly disclosed and the Academy determines that the conflict is unavoidable, (B) the committee membership is fairly balanced as determined by the Academy to be appropriate for the functions to be performed, and (C) the final report of the Academy will be the result of the Academy's independent judgment. The Academy shall require that individuals that the Academy appoints or intends to appoint to serve on the committee inform the Academy of the individual's conflicts of interest that are relevant to the functions to be performed. ``(2) The Academy shall determine and provide public notice of committee meetings that will be open to the public. ``(3) The Academy shall ensure that meetings of the committee to gather data from individuals who are not officials, agents, or employees of the Academy are open to the public, unless the Academy determines that a meeting would disclose matters described in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code. The Academy shall make available to the public, at reasonable charge if appropriate, written materials presented to the committee by individuals who are not officials, agents, or employees of the Academy, unless the Academy determines that making material available would disclose matters described in that section. ``(4) The Academy shall make available to the public as soon as practicable, at reasonable charge if appropriate, a brief summary of any committee meeting that is not a data gathering meeting, unless the Academy determines that the summary would disclose matters described in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code. The summary shall identify the committee members present, the topics discussed, materials made available to the committee, and such other matters that the Academy determines should be included. ``(5) The Academy shall make available to the public its final report, at reasonable charge if appropriate, unless the Academy determines that the report would disclose matters described in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code. If the Academy determines that the report would disclose matters described in that section, the Academy shall make public an abbreviated version of the report that does not disclose those matters. ``(6) After publication of the final report, the Academy shall make publicly available the names of the principal reviewers who reviewed the report in draft form and who are not officials, agents, or employees of the Academy. ``(c) Regulations.--The Administrator of General Services may issue regulations implementing this section.''. (c) Effective Date and Application.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this section and the amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. (2) Retroactive effect.--Subsection (a) and the amendments made by subsection (a) shall be effective as of October 6, 1972, except that they shall not apply with respect to or otherwise affect any particular advice or recommendations that are subject to any judicial action filed before the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 3. REPORT. Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services shall submit a report to the Congress on the implementation of and compliance with the amendments made by this Act. Speaker of the House of Representatives. Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate. Solution:

question:You are an AI assistant. You will be given a task. You must generate a detailed and long answer. Translate from English to Spanish: Personal Information Management / 2543 download Simple and intuitive interface, easy work and basic functions. decision support, decision making, the best solution Spanish: