Personally, I'm reminded of the attitude of the Daleks from Doctor Who's Evolution of the Daleks - namely, they're pissed because they got stuck on the primitive world that is 1930's Earth.
Why do we assume aliens would be interested in us? We could easily just be yet another primitive planet that no one cares about, like a bad party that no one wants to go to.
Even without "human" input, five of the seven climatic models that show global warming show increases in temperature. They have a run-away problem in that they don't eventually stop heating up. A equilibrium point should be reached sometime.
On Venus, the point where the planet stopped heating up was about 900 degrees farenheit. The equilibrium point does not necessarily have to occur within a temperature range suitable for life.
But won't the subsequent production of energy push matter away from it hence slowing the reaction? Like how the supermassive blackholes at the center of the galaxy are supposed to work, as they absorbed matter their energy output increased pushing other nearby matter farther away.
And from what I understand it requires currently approx. 25 billion dollars to get 1 gram of said antimatter. As such, 1000 kilos would require 25 trillion dollars to produce which amounts to approx. 2.5x the GDP of the United States of America.
No, the character played by John Cusack was Doctor Louis Slotin who had on the 21st of May 1945 been involved in an accident:
Slotin had been instructing a colleague, Alvin C. Graves, who was to replace him at the Omega Site. Also present was S. Allan Kline, a 26-year-old graduate of the University of Chicago, who had been called over to observe the procedure. Five other colleagues were close by as Slotin, a Canadian physicist from Winnipeg who had been part of the team that created the atomic bomb, performed the action that would bring into close proximity the two halves of a beryllium-coated sphere and convert the plutonium to a critical state.
With his left thumb wedged into a cavity in the top element, Slotin had moved the top half of the sphere closer to the stationary lower portion, a micro-inch at a time. In his right hand was a screwdriver, which was being used to keep the two spheres from touching. Then, in that fatal moment, the screwdriver slipped. The halves of the sphere touched and the plutonium went supercritical.
The chain reaction was stopped when Slotin knocked the spheres apart, but deadly gamma and neutron radiation had flashed into the room in a blue blaze caused by the instantaneous ionization of the lab's air particles. Louis Slotin had been exposed to almost 1,000 rads of radiation, far more than a lethal dose. Kline, who had been three or four feet away from Slotin, received between 90 and 100 rads, while Graves, standing a bit closer, received an estimated 166 rads.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/lavitt/louisslotin.html
The accident involving Daghlian occured in August, oddly enough again on a 21st.
Everyone has alreay basically stated that the ISS as it is is nothing but a piece of garbage, now it looks like the physical world is catching up to that fact as well.
The fact that it isn't an actual debate. I heard about the rules on the news. No canidate can ask the other a question (though they can ask rehtorical questions). No true rebuttels on anything. The mod asks a question, each gives his response, and that's about it. The result? You can basically cut and paste what the canidates said at other speeches and come up with what's going to be said during this debate. Its a joint press conference, not a debate.
What if we took the same approach when a natural disaster happens? I'm sorry but its your fault for living in a house that got the shit kicked out of it by the latest tornado. Have a nice day? Show some compassion for your fellow human beings. Afterall, we're all in this together.
The seizure of private property by the state is not the answer. Not only is it not the answer, it's not even an answer. It's immoral and wrong, before you even get into a discussion about whether it's good or bad.
Private property rights to an extent are granted by the state, not by natural law. It is only right that you be given the rightful rewards of your labor but when you misuse those rights to gain an unfair advantage in obtaining the rewards of others' labor, then it is no longer immoral for the state to balance such a situation by a redistibution of wealth. In simpler terms, it is your right to recieve the rewards of your labor as long as you don't misuse the system and hence infringe on the rights of others to get the rewards for their labor. For example, let us say you misuse the system to gain an unfair advantage or a monopoly and then use that to obtain far more rewards for your labor then your labor is obviously worth.* In such a situation, it only makes sense that the state would correct the flaw in its system by then requiring that person to use that ill gotten wealth afforded by the state, for the betterment of all, in this case by giving more wealth to the state than an ordinary person.
Now there are a lot of arguments to make about this and I'll skip most of them except the most often overlooked one: that an over concentration of wealth is in itself a flaw of the system. In an ideal system everyone would get as much and only as much as they need. The fact that you are getting more than you need (which usually means more than you can make use of), even if it does not deprive someone else, is not an intended consequence of a perfect system. Now of course there is also the matter of unequal labor, in a perfect system everyone would contribute an equal amount of labor but that is another discussion. There is also the matter of social responsibility and American indivisaulism that has gone from self reliance to self absorption but I will not address that here.
Now, I'm not trying to argue whether you may or may not be right, I am merely pointing out the obvious that the issue of property rights is not as black and white as you make it out to be.
* - This of course opens its own philosphical nightmare - how much is labor worth? What the market says? Not exactly since the market has a number of externalities that are governed by the state for the betterment of all the members of that state.
Re:low unemployment compared to europe
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Just as people have self-destructive tendencies with diet because we didn't evolve in an environment filled with calorie rich and easily obtained food, we also end up shooting ourselves in the foot when we decide to circle the wagons and protect members of the "tribe."
But on the same note, we also end up shooting ourselves in the head when we remove all ethical restrictions in the name of those long term benifits. Just as captalism will be destroyed by too much restrictions, it will also be destoryed by too much freedom. What we require is a balance. Not isolationsism but also most certainly not free trade.
As to it not being the world we live in and that we should do what is best for all, yes it is nice to help the rest of the world attain a higher standard of living but that is not what is being accomplished currently. Rather at the moment we are sacrficing our standard of living so that a very small percentage of us can attain an even higher standard of living than before.
With that in mind, placing some restrictions on the rampant greed and short sightedness of those who wish to take advantage of this system to the deteriment of everyone seems a much wiser policy then to just let it all go and hope we all end better for it in the end.
Just as people should be careful of programs that help the unemployed too much, they should also be wary of being too eager to throw everyone to the wolves in the name of long term gain.
Yep, there are people in the third world countries who will accuse me of "exploitation", but I don't mind. If they won't let me exploit them, then they won't get jobs. It's that simple.
And then, there are Americans who accuse me of "exporting jobs to other countries". Again, I don't mind.
You see, if I can't make a toaster oven in America under U$ 2.25, then I won't make money selling them not only in America, but also all over the world. I gotta find the CHEAPEST PLACE IN THE WORLD to do what I need to do, and if that means doing it OUTSIDE AMERICA, I'll do it in a jiffy.
And thus were the last words recorded of the first one up against the wall when the revolution came...
They cite instances of Japanese failed loans as evidence that such central stimulus is prone to terrible consequences. In reality, despite a "slumping economy," by all meaningful measures Japan is one of the most prosperous nations in the world having a tremendous trade surplus each year with the US, China, and Europe. It is a country that accounts for 1/3 of the entire world savings (meaning reinvestment as opposed to wealth eroding consumption) each year (at a world beating rate of 15% of GDP) compared to a US level of 1.7% in 1999 (the lowest level since the great depression). It is a country that holds more than 1/3 of our US national (government) debt. According to the IMF, Japan's net foreign assets have quadrupled in the last 12 years and their current account surpluses in the 1990's were 2.4 times that of the 1980's. Its so-called "huge" and oft misquoted internal government debt is financed almost entirely by the Japanese themselves and on a "net" basis is actually quite marginal considering that much of this debt goes towards the purchase of US government bonds (i.e. the Japanese government borrows money from its people to purchase US debt securities). Japan is a net creditor country, with tremendous industry, that does not rely at all on internal consumer spending for its economy, and has managed to accomplish all of this while being smaller than the state of California, having 86% unusable land, whose only natural resources are fish, and a country within 50 years of complete decimation following World War II.
In the 1980's there was tremendous concern among Reagan administration officials that the US was losing its competitive position in the world. Reagan enacted numerous protectionist policies in an effort to stem the hemorrhaging trade deficit. Media attention was centered on a doomsday scenario whereby Japanese and Arab interests would come to own and control everything in this country. "Fortunately" for America, Japan's economy suffered a supposed devastating meltdown following a series of failed loans, a stock market crash, and a burst real estate bubble. Twenty years later, however, Japan's economy is stronger than ever. As noted elsewhere, its assets have quadrupled in the same period and its dominance of global industries is now unparalleled and unquestioned.
http://www.economyincrisis.com/index.php?module= fe atured&function=disp&aid=322
It's like the rainforest - the problem didn't go away, in fact its probably worse. It's just we stopped paying attention to it.
A government which is a caraciture of all that is greedy, glutonous and to be depised
I got news for ya, brit. Both parties are like that. They just pretend not to be when their guys aren't in office.
What is happening is China is growing strong off of us. It's like a parasite, its sapping our current power to feed its own. The big shift your thinking about? That will be the end, when China no longer needs us and drops us like a hot potato. Just look at the currencies - if the chinese ever decide to stop tying their currency to the dollar and instead decides to fly on their own, our currency will plummet and theirs will skyrocket. They are in a much better economic position than we are. Much better and it will only get better as time progresses. So why don't they drop us? Because they still need us. A lot of people have fooled themselves into thinking that they will always need us. They can't imagine a global economic model were we are not the center of the universe.
Right now, we are the only market capable of absorbing the amount of goods China wants to sell. That's all we are to the chinese: customers. We aren't business partners, I don't understand why people can't get that through their skulls. There was a time when china's economy was dependent on what we did. In five years, that will no longer be the case. In five years, their economy will be the one in control. Yet our politicians have fooled themselves into thinking we will always be the dominant economy (even as it shifts towards China). In 1996 my global studies teacher said that when China awoke as an industrial power, watch out because unless we were real careful we wouldn't even stand a chance of competeing with them. We have elected people that not only don't realize the extent of the problem, they refuse to acept the problem even exists.
I know its cliched to say so but there is a parrellel here with ancient Rome in one respect. The ancient Romans believed that Rome was invincible and eternal. They were sure of it. When Alaric and the goths sacked Rome in the 300's AD, it almost caused the collapse of their society. Now 1700 years later, we find ourselves in a similiar situation. Everyone thinks the US is invincible and eternal. I can't wait till the chinese prove us wrong, this time not through military actions but economic conquest. Its funny really, we invented economic imperialism (the concept that if you control a country's economy, you in effect control the country without ever having to put a man on the ground.) Now we find the chinese using our own tactics against us.
What is happening is China is growing strong off of us. It's like a parasite, its sapping our current power to feed its own. The big shift your thinking about? That will be the end, when China no longer needs us and drops us like a hot potato. Just look at the currencies - if the chinese ever decide to stop tying their currency to the dollar and instead decides to fly on their own, our currency will plummet and theirs will skyrocket. They are in a much better economic position than we are. Much better and it will only get better as time progresses. So why don't they drop us? Because they still need us. A lot of people have fooled themselves into thinking that they will always need us. They can't imagine a global economic model were we are not the center of the universe.
Right now, we are the only market capable of absorbing the amount of goods China wants to sell. That's all we are to the chinese: customers. We aren't business partners, I don't understand why people can't get that through their skulls. There was a time when china's economy was dependent on what we did. In five years, that will no longer be the case. In five years, their economy will be the one in control. Yet our politicians have fooled themselves into thinking we will always be the dominant economy (even as it shifts towards China). In 1996 my global studies teacher said that when China awoke as an industrial power, watch out because unless we were real careful we wouldn't even stand a chance of competeing with them. We have elected people that not only don't realize the extent of the problem, they refuse to acept the problem even exists.
I know its cliched to say so but there is a parrellel here with ancient Rome in one respect. The ancient Romans believed that Rome was invincible and eternal. They were sure of it. When Alaric and the goths sacked Rome in the 300's AD, it almost caused the collapse of their society. Now 1700 years later, we find ourselves in a similiar situation. Everyone thinks the US is invincible and eternal. I can't wait till the chinese prove us wrong, this time not through military actions but economic conquest. Its funny really, we invented economic imperialism (the concept that if you control a country's economy, you in effect control the country without ever having to put a man on the ground.) Now we find the chinese using our own tactics against us.
The biggest problem with your theory (and there are numerous problems) is that none of the matter in the solar system orginated from the solar system. It orgianted elsewhere and collected here to form the nebula that became the planets and sun. That fact shoots your theory to hell.
Maybe the entire solar solar system is sourrounded by a force field of some type (natural or unnatural). Maybe the entire solar system is a giant science experiment and we just hit the edge of the petri dish. The question on everyone's mind: what is the question (cause even we know the answer is 42).
Maybe they'll rename the company Orange. Of course, then they'll have to deal with people comparing the offerings of the new company to those of the old, but that won't go to far. Afterall, you can't compare Apple's to Orange's.
Maybe its just George Lucas who isn't doing another star wars movie. Maybe he decided to let someone else do the work. And maybe, just maybe, pigs fly.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'm reminded of the attitude of the Daleks from Doctor Who's Evolution of the Daleks - namely, they're pissed because they got stuck on the primitive world that is 1930's Earth.
Why do we assume aliens would be interested in us? We could easily just be yet another primitive planet that no one cares about, like a bad party that no one wants to go to.
Even without "human" input, five of the seven climatic models that show global warming show increases in temperature. They have a run-away problem in that they don't eventually stop heating up. A equilibrium point should be reached sometime.
On Venus, the point where the planet stopped heating up was about 900 degrees farenheit. The equilibrium point does not necessarily have to occur within a temperature range suitable for life.
But won't the subsequent production of energy push matter away from it hence slowing the reaction? Like how the supermassive blackholes at the center of the galaxy are supposed to work, as they absorbed matter their energy output increased pushing other nearby matter farther away.
And from what I understand it requires currently approx. 25 billion dollars to get 1 gram of said antimatter. As such, 1000 kilos would require 25 trillion dollars to produce which amounts to approx. 2.5x the GDP of the United States of America.
No, the character played by John Cusack was Doctor Louis Slotin who had on the 21st of May 1945 been involved in an accident:
l
Slotin had been instructing a colleague, Alvin C. Graves, who was to replace him at the Omega Site. Also present was S. Allan Kline, a 26-year-old graduate of the University of Chicago, who had been called over to observe the procedure. Five other colleagues were close by as Slotin, a Canadian physicist from Winnipeg who had been part of the team that created the atomic bomb, performed the action that would bring into close proximity the two halves of a beryllium-coated sphere and convert the plutonium to a critical state.
With his left thumb wedged into a cavity in the top element, Slotin had moved the top half of the sphere closer to the stationary lower portion, a micro-inch at a time. In his right hand was a screwdriver, which was being used to keep the two spheres from touching. Then, in that fatal moment, the screwdriver slipped. The halves of the sphere touched and the plutonium went supercritical.
The chain reaction was stopped when Slotin knocked the spheres apart, but deadly gamma and neutron radiation had flashed into the room in a blue blaze caused by the instantaneous ionization of the lab's air particles. Louis Slotin had been exposed to almost 1,000 rads of radiation, far more than a lethal dose. Kline, who had been three or four feet away from Slotin, received between 90 and 100 rads, while Graves, standing a bit closer, received an estimated 166 rads.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/lavitt/louisslotin.htm
The accident involving Daghlian occured in August, oddly enough again on a 21st.
Everyone has alreay basically stated that the ISS as it is is nothing but a piece of garbage, now it looks like the physical world is catching up to that fact as well.
The fact that it isn't an actual debate. I heard about the rules on the news. No canidate can ask the other a question (though they can ask rehtorical questions). No true rebuttels on anything. The mod asks a question, each gives his response, and that's about it. The result? You can basically cut and paste what the canidates said at other speeches and come up with what's going to be said during this debate. Its a joint press conference, not a debate.
What if we took the same approach when a natural disaster happens? I'm sorry but its your fault for living in a house that got the shit kicked out of it by the latest tornado. Have a nice day? Show some compassion for your fellow human beings. Afterall, we're all in this together.
The seizure of private property by the state is not the answer. Not only is it not the answer, it's not even an answer. It's immoral and wrong, before you even get into a discussion about whether it's good or bad.
Private property rights to an extent are granted by the state, not by natural law. It is only right that you be given the rightful rewards of your labor but when you misuse those rights to gain an unfair advantage in obtaining the rewards of others' labor, then it is no longer immoral for the state to balance such a situation by a redistibution of wealth. In simpler terms, it is your right to recieve the rewards of your labor as long as you don't misuse the system and hence infringe on the rights of others to get the rewards for their labor. For example, let us say you misuse the system to gain an unfair advantage or a monopoly and then use that to obtain far more rewards for your labor then your labor is obviously worth.* In such a situation, it only makes sense that the state would correct the flaw in its system by then requiring that person to use that ill gotten wealth afforded by the state, for the betterment of all, in this case by giving more wealth to the state than an ordinary person.
Now there are a lot of arguments to make about this and I'll skip most of them except the most often overlooked one: that an over concentration of wealth is in itself a flaw of the system. In an ideal system everyone would get as much and only as much as they need. The fact that you are getting more than you need (which usually means more than you can make use of), even if it does not deprive someone else, is not an intended consequence of a perfect system. Now of course there is also the matter of unequal labor, in a perfect system everyone would contribute an equal amount of labor but that is another discussion. There is also the matter of social responsibility and American indivisaulism that has gone from self reliance to self absorption but I will not address that here.
Now, I'm not trying to argue whether you may or may not be right, I am merely pointing out the obvious that the issue of property rights is not as black and white as you make it out to be.
* - This of course opens its own philosphical nightmare - how much is labor worth? What the market says? Not exactly since the market has a number of externalities that are governed by the state for the betterment of all the members of that state.
Just as people have self-destructive tendencies with diet because we didn't evolve in an environment filled with calorie rich and easily obtained food, we also end up shooting ourselves in the foot when we decide to circle the wagons and protect members of the "tribe."
But on the same note, we also end up shooting ourselves in the head when we remove all ethical restrictions in the name of those long term benifits. Just as captalism will be destroyed by too much restrictions, it will also be destoryed by too much freedom. What we require is a balance. Not isolationsism but also most certainly not free trade.
As to it not being the world we live in and that we should do what is best for all, yes it is nice to help the rest of the world attain a higher standard of living but that is not what is being accomplished currently. Rather at the moment we are sacrficing our standard of living so that a very small percentage of us can attain an even higher standard of living than before.
With that in mind, placing some restrictions on the rampant greed and short sightedness of those who wish to take advantage of this system to the deteriment of everyone seems a much wiser policy then to just let it all go and hope we all end better for it in the end.
Just as people should be careful of programs that help the unemployed too much, they should also be wary of being too eager to throw everyone to the wolves in the name of long term gain.
Yep, there are people in the third world countries who will accuse me of "exploitation", but I don't mind. If they won't let me exploit them, then they won't get jobs. It's that simple.
And then, there are Americans who accuse me of "exporting jobs to other countries". Again, I don't mind.
You see, if I can't make a toaster oven in America under U$ 2.25, then I won't make money selling them not only in America, but also all over the world. I gotta find the CHEAPEST PLACE IN THE WORLD to do what I need to do, and if that means doing it OUTSIDE AMERICA, I'll do it in a jiffy.
And thus were the last words recorded of the first one up against the wall when the revolution came...
The people who want to die, are going to die. They have given up and want me to take care of them, I do not care about these people.
I can't believe that the noblest impulse in man, his compassion for another, can be completely dead here.
- Kirk Douglas, Paths of Glory
They cite instances of Japanese failed loans as evidence that such central stimulus is prone to terrible consequences. In reality, despite a "slumping economy," by all meaningful measures Japan is one of the most prosperous nations in the world having a tremendous trade surplus each year with the US, China, and Europe. It is a country that accounts for 1/3 of the entire world savings (meaning reinvestment as opposed to wealth eroding consumption) each year (at a world beating rate of 15% of GDP) compared to a US level of 1.7% in 1999 (the lowest level since the great depression). It is a country that holds more than 1/3 of our US national (government) debt. According to the IMF, Japan's net foreign assets have quadrupled in the last 12 years and their current account surpluses in the 1990's were 2.4 times that of the 1980's. Its so-called "huge" and oft misquoted internal government debt is financed almost entirely by the Japanese themselves and on a "net" basis is actually quite marginal considering that much of this debt goes towards the purchase of US government bonds (i.e. the Japanese government borrows money from its people to purchase US debt securities). Japan is a net creditor country, with tremendous industry, that does not rely at all on internal consumer spending for its economy, and has managed to accomplish all of this while being smaller than the state of California, having 86% unusable land, whose only natural resources are fish, and a country within 50 years of complete decimation following World War II.
= fe atured&function=disp&aid=322
In the 1980's there was tremendous concern among Reagan administration officials that the US was losing its competitive position in the world. Reagan enacted numerous protectionist policies in an effort to stem the hemorrhaging trade deficit. Media attention was centered on a doomsday scenario whereby Japanese and Arab interests would come to own and control everything in this country. "Fortunately" for America, Japan's economy suffered a supposed devastating meltdown following a series of failed loans, a stock market crash, and a burst real estate bubble. Twenty years later, however, Japan's economy is stronger than ever. As noted elsewhere, its assets have quadrupled in the same period and its dominance of global industries is now unparalleled and unquestioned.
http://www.economyincrisis.com/index.php?module
It's like the rainforest - the problem didn't go away, in fact its probably worse. It's just we stopped paying attention to it.
A government which is a caraciture of all that is greedy, glutonous and to be depised I got news for ya, brit. Both parties are like that. They just pretend not to be when their guys aren't in office.
Just wait till china invades Alaska and we annex Canada. War. War never changes...
(Now with better formatting)
What is happening is China is growing strong off of us. It's like a parasite, its sapping our current power to feed its own. The big shift your thinking about? That will be the end, when China no longer needs us and drops us like a hot potato. Just look at the currencies - if the chinese ever decide to stop tying their currency to the dollar and instead decides to fly on their own, our currency will plummet and theirs will skyrocket. They are in a much better economic position than we are. Much better and it will only get better as time progresses. So why don't they drop us? Because they still need us. A lot of people have fooled themselves into thinking that they will always need us. They can't imagine a global economic model were we are not the center of the universe.
Right now, we are the only market capable of absorbing the amount of goods China wants to sell. That's all we are to the chinese: customers. We aren't business partners, I don't understand why people can't get that through their skulls. There was a time when china's economy was dependent on what we did. In five years, that will no longer be the case. In five years, their economy will be the one in control. Yet our politicians have fooled themselves into thinking we will always be the dominant economy (even as it shifts towards China). In 1996 my global studies teacher said that when China awoke as an industrial power, watch out because unless we were real careful we wouldn't even stand a chance of competeing with them. We have elected people that not only don't realize the extent of the problem, they refuse to acept the problem even exists.
I know its cliched to say so but there is a parrellel here with ancient Rome in one respect. The ancient Romans believed that Rome was invincible and eternal. They were sure of it. When Alaric and the goths sacked Rome in the 300's AD, it almost caused the collapse of their society. Now 1700 years later, we find ourselves in a similiar situation. Everyone thinks the US is invincible and eternal. I can't wait till the chinese prove us wrong, this time not through military actions but economic conquest. Its funny really, we invented economic imperialism (the concept that if you control a country's economy, you in effect control the country without ever having to put a man on the ground.) Now we find the chinese using our own tactics against us.
And the other thing is competition is good for everyone.
Not when you're on the losing side.
What is happening is China is growing strong off of us. It's like a parasite, its sapping our current power to feed its own. The big shift your thinking about? That will be the end, when China no longer needs us and drops us like a hot potato. Just look at the currencies - if the chinese ever decide to stop tying their currency to the dollar and instead decides to fly on their own, our currency will plummet and theirs will skyrocket. They are in a much better economic position than we are. Much better and it will only get better as time progresses. So why don't they drop us? Because they still need us. A lot of people have fooled themselves into thinking that they will always need us. They can't imagine a global economic model were we are not the center of the universe. Right now, we are the only market capable of absorbing the amount of goods China wants to sell. That's all we are to the chinese: customers. We aren't business partners, I don't understand why people can't get that through their skulls. There was a time when china's economy was dependent on what we did. In five years, that will no longer be the case. In five years, their economy will be the one in control. Yet our politicians have fooled themselves into thinking we will always be the dominant economy (even as it shifts towards China). In 1996 my global studies teacher said that when China awoke as an industrial power, watch out because unless we were real careful we wouldn't even stand a chance of competeing with them. We have elected people that not only don't realize the extent of the problem, they refuse to acept the problem even exists. I know its cliched to say so but there is a parrellel here with ancient Rome in one respect. The ancient Romans believed that Rome was invincible and eternal. They were sure of it. When Alaric and the goths sacked Rome in the 300's AD, it almost caused the collapse of their society. Now 1700 years later, we find ourselves in a similiar situation. Everyone thinks the US is invincible and eternal. I can't wait till the chinese prove us wrong, this time not through military actions but economic conquest. Its funny really, we invented economic imperialism (the concept that if you control a country's economy, you in effect control the country without ever having to put a man on the ground.) Now we find the chinese using our own tactics against us.
It was done on purpose, moron. You can't compare Apple's offerings to Orange's offerings but that doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it?
Just hope you don't get enslaved by the Hutt's. Living on Tantoinee is really going to suck.
The biggest problem with your theory (and there are numerous problems) is that none of the matter in the solar system orginated from the solar system. It orgianted elsewhere and collected here to form the nebula that became the planets and sun. That fact shoots your theory to hell.
I'm going to blame it on the GNAA. I knew those bastards' so called harmless fun would come back to bite us all in the ass.
Maybe the entire solar solar system is sourrounded by a force field of some type (natural or unnatural). Maybe the entire solar system is a giant science experiment and we just hit the edge of the petri dish. The question on everyone's mind: what is the question (cause even we know the answer is 42).
Maybe they'll rename the company Orange. Of course, then they'll have to deal with people comparing the offerings of the new company to those of the old, but that won't go to far. Afterall, you can't compare Apple's to Orange's.
Maybe its just George Lucas who isn't doing another star wars movie. Maybe he decided to let someone else do the work. And maybe, just maybe, pigs fly.