> From: K Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> > Since you are too young, let me instruct you <evil grin>
> >
> > There will _never_ be One Evil Overlord. The situation of One Evil
> > Overlord is too unstable, because the second after the Evil Overlord
> > smashes his enemies, 600 million of his Evil Minions will begin
> > individual conspiracies against him.
> >
> > By the same token, more than three Evil Overlords can't coexist,
> > because the bigger will smash the smaller
> >
> > Two is not stable either, because even a small advantage to one
> > of them is enough to overpower the other.
> >
> > The stable configuration is a World split by _three_ Evil Overlords,
> > competing and allying with themselves, so that _always_ the
> > two smaller join forces against the bigger. That's because the
> > _second_ biggest knows that, when the _third_ is eliminated,
> > there will be nothing to prevent the _first_ to become the unique.
> >
> > Read 1984, kid O:-)
>
>
> Y'know, I laughed when I first read this, because of the humorous tone.
> But then you got me thinking...
>
> You've got a *very* good point there, and not just about Evil
Overlords.
> Perhaps the instability in our current international situation can be
> explained by the fact that there is only one remaining superpower.
(There
> were never three, but maybe the situation could've been modeled as the
US
> vs. the Soviets vs. a bloc of all the other communist and totalitarian
> countries.)
Thats exactly what happened. We had a an edge. We used it to drive the
Soviet Union into the ground. It was a great plan, exucuted for ~fifty
years, designed with one thing in mind, It was called the arms race.
Very specifically We forced them to spend all their money trying to keep
up with the arms build up of the US, and it worked, well. And given
enough time, the same plan will work with china too.
> Microsoft vs. Linux vs...?
^^^^^
Apple.
> Coke vs. Pepsi vs...?
>
RC Cola.
