It is possiable as long as the communication is fast enough. I think an empire/kingdom would be better for a galatic empire because the government could be more streamlined and fast acting then a republic probably would be. I see republics having trouble forming any kind of galatic empire, but I guess it is still possiable,

Also in the star wars universe Palpatine didn't control the whole galaxy, the Hutts controlled a rather large section of the galaxy then there was the outer rim which no one really controlled fully, if I remember correctly there where a few different factions that controled parts of the outer rim but never the whole outer rim.

I am a bit rusty on my WW2 history but if I remember correctly most if not all of the Nazi symbals where either one or a mixture of red, black, and white. The flag is blue and white, with it being off color from the normal Nazi color scheme and with the rune S being a rather common symbal I wouldn't of connected it to the Nazis and I know a decent amount of WW2 history.

An EMP bomb couldn't destroy civilization as we know it, a few might but not just one.

From what I heard, read and learned about EMPs it is possiable. There are 2 types of EMPs, nuclear and non nuclear. For Nuclear you need an a nuclear bomb, for non nuclear there are alot of different ways to varing degrees of efficentcy.

I remember reading about a bomb that was non nuclear that created an EMP, but the problem with EMPs is earth's magnetic field. Due to how strong earths magnetic field is it limits how far the EMP will travel. If you want an EMP to take out lets say the USA you would need to denonate it at about 300 miles up. If I remember that was for a nuclear EMP, don't know about how high a non nuclear EMP would have to be.

With a nuclear EMP the yield of the nuclear weapon isn't as important as how high it is denonated. Something about the increase of the explosive yield isn't equal to the EMP created, I remember. If I get some free time I might look more up on this.

An EMP attack would be rather effective, the data loss alone would be crushing, let alove the fact most if not all eletronics wouldn't work.

[QUOTE="Shadow_Fighter"]

Just figured I would mention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.

Hiroshima at the time of he bombing had a few military camp including the head quarters of the 5th Division and 2nd General Army headquarters which commanded the defences of southern Japan. Was also a supply and logistics base, communication center, storage and assembly area for troops.

As for Nagasaki is was a large sea port nd had alot of industry that produced ammo, ships, and varies military equipment. While alot of the industry was damaged before droping the atomic bomb on Nagasakithe port was mostly untouched.

Seems like both cities had alot of militay significace and honostly think about it, you got 2 bombs that cost alot moey and time to produce, do you honostly think they would be used on cities that had little to no military significance. People really need to do research on military matters before going off on rants.

UniverseIX

Actualliy if it is a military target has alot to do with what is terrorism. For it to be a terrorist attack you would have to prove that we purposefuly attacked the civilians. You could probably argue that we did but the fact that we warned the Japanese civilians in those cities of the impending bombings in advance it would seem to point to the fact that we where only targeting the military target in the area. The fact that the Japanese civilians didn't leave when they had the chance or that the Japanese government put high value military targets in those cities does not make it a terrorist attack.

I admit that terror works, it if an effective tactic and is used in all wars and no where was I pretending to be righteous, I merely stated that the two cities had military targets in them. Personaly I think the American military has grown to soft since ww2 and that we need to add a bit more terror into our strategies.

Just figured I would mention that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets.

Hiroshima at the time of he bombing had a few military camp including the head quarters of the 5th Division and 2nd General Army headquarters which commanded the defences of southern Japan. Was also a supply and logistics base, communication center, storage and assembly area for troops.

As for Nagasaki is was a large sea port nd had alot of industry that produced ammo, ships, and varies military equipment. While alot of the industry was damaged before droping the atomic bomb on Nagasakithe port was mostly untouched.

Seems like both cities had alot of militay significace and honostly think about it, you got 2 bombs that cost alot moey and time to produce, do you honostly think they would be used on cities that had little to no military significance. People really need to do research on military matters before going off on rants.

Only problem with no tolorence is that it teaches children that someone will be there to rescue you. In the real world, as in after high school, there is little to no chance of someone being there to rescue you. It is far better to learn how to deal with a bully when the stakes are low then having to figure it out later when there are real stakes in the matter.

How people learn to deal with bullies, I can't give a one answer solution due to the variables involved. All I can say is how I managed, and that was by getting into the group with the most power my freshman year. Will that work with everyone, I know it won't but it is how I did it.

There is alot wrong with this special bully school.

The first thing wrong is how it would be implicated. So you take all these bullies out of normal school and send them to this special bully school where they basicly have no freedom, and from what I have read sounds like they would have it bad there. Bad enough for them not to want to go back. So you are basicly suggesting we send these bullies to a school where they would be bullied by adults more then likely in an attempt to break and reform them. So instead of truely fixing the problem, which I personaly don't think bullying is a problem, you instead just want the bullies treated as bad or worse then they treated others.

Second you are creating a vacuum. So lets say we remove all of these bullies from school, the ones you described. The first thing that would happen would be those bullies would be replaced with new bullies, these new bullies instead of using physcial force or verbal abuse would instead use threats of reporting. These new bullies would be far worse, instead of just having verbal abusers and light physical abusers you now have a type of bully that can first ruin your future permanently and the effect of the bullyinh would now last long after the interaction with the bully ended. The bullies that are around now, they can truely only effect you for a few years at most and they can only bully you when you interact with them. Do you honostly want to create bullies who would get innocent people sent to this special school of yours where they would be bullied to the point of basicly being broken.

Before you go into how there would be safe guards against such fake reporting I will tell you now they will not work. It is alot easier to get a small group of people together and fake a report then it is to bully people in the more traditional way. Atleast with the more traditional way you need to interact with the perosn, the new bullies wouldn't even need to interact with you to effectively bully you anymore.

I could probably think of more in time but this should be good enough for now.

I admit in high school I would of been classified as a bully, so I will try to put my spin on how to handle this issue. First thing that needs to be done is to get the school less involved. Honostly we all know the world is a messed up place, the powerful persecute the weak and trying to stall when children will learn to deal with it will only hurt them in the end.

Pittsburgh

DC

I was planning on playing a few new games on it. I was also planning on bringing it to some of my classes. My price range is about $2,000 I can go over that price some, and yes I live in the US.

Not sure if this is the correct place or not but it seems like it is.

I am about to buy a new laptop but I ain't sure which one is better

Option A at $1,879

intel core i7 2820qm 2.3GHz

500 GB harddrive

8GB dual channel ddr3 at 1600MHz

3.0GB DDR3 nvidia geforce GT 555M

Option B at $1,390

intel core i7 2630qm 2.0GHz

750 GB harddrive

8GB ddr3 at 1333MHz (can upgrade to 16GB)

nvidia GTX 460m with 1.5GB gddr5 vram

Option B seems better with a better graphics card and bigger harddrive but option a has a better processor and ram since I really don't want to upgrade the ram of option B even though it may be better.