The Nobel prize lost its virtue and became a political instrument.

Maybe it happened long before, I just have not noticed.

The only problem is that we still have no protection against solar flares - ergo any long stay of humans either deep in Moon's craters or inside the Earth's protective magnetic field.

You know, there are plenty of successful space missions propelled by chemical jets, and using already proven technology for human missions has a lot of sense.

But I agree, that anything serious regarding space exploration can start with a more efficient propulsion, e.g. an operational VASIMR, which I would welcome with a great joy.

I think a much better way is to use technology to reduce the negative impact on the environment. EU leads in this matter and have noticeable results. There are technologies for clean energy change for our needs, and the most advanced countries have rather problems with shrinking population, so everything regulates itself. What is needed is the "green" culture, and education. Education because there are too many people in the news expressing opinions on topics they have little knowledge about, with arguments on the level as "I go outside and it is cold, so global warming is a hoax" - unfortunately one can hear such nonsenses on TV several times a day.

Reduced population certainly will not solve war or other conflicts (history), but education and understanding of a human nature can. Reduced population certainly will make our species more vulnerable and will slow down progress in all areas, also the very important ones.

Instead of worrying, that the horses poo will flood the cities it is better to find another mean of mass transportation.

I would add that for sure its memory was limited, and as being astro-robot for sure it is better to store astro data (for which there is never enough memory) than "Yes sir" in 6 millions forms of communication.

Not necessarily. The stormtroopers where not only to fight with another army, but also to keep order, kind of police, and the armor for sure was helpful when taking control over riots. Also helpful when establishing posts in not very friendly places (with a lot of predators).

On the other hand having helmet and armor had a psychological effect for both their enemies (not necessarily soldiers), and themselves (have you ever heard of the Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment?) - they were genetically modified clones, but still humans.

There was nothing in the movie about living for thousand years, just about being digested for thousand years.

So what you are saying is, that in case of an imminent holocaust of your country, you would say: "No, lets not destroy this battle ship, there are thousands of people there. They came to destroy us, but we cannot be like them, let them destroy us".

?

Maybe because on the planet full of smugglers, thieves, etc. the only parts he could have get for free were protocol droid parts.
Do you remember whose slave he was? Do you think the guy like him would throw out a not broken robot part not from a protocol droid?
Or maybe being born as a slave he dreamed about being powerful someday, maybe it was the part of his dream he could afford to have. After all he became one of the most ruthless dictators one can imagine, so it had to have some roots, it is pity it was not shown in the movie.

You hit the nail.
In the Star Wars universe things are built for purpose, without bells and whistles. Things get broken, rusty, look creepy, sometimes are not finished, or have some design flaws. Poor people wear simple closes, have simple equipment, and robots with visible cables. Floors get dirty and have to be cleaned. One great SF writer would have said that in SW universe people go to restrooms. That is why it is so realistic. Realistic in the sense of portraying a civilization, where people are still people just using advanced technology, a technology which is still limited.

Of course there are funny or not logical things, there are mistakes Lukas made, but far from most he is accused for. Even more, most of the stuff is explained in the movies. But when people just do not listen carefully plus do not have to much idea about engineering than it results in wasted electrons, e.g.:

• a robot designed to repair and control other machines, looks like one, and has equipment to e.g. grease a joint if needed.
• they still have to convert fission heat to electricity somehow, if they use steam generators (why not) they still have to face emergency situations with too high pressures, so still they need some vents to let it go to space in case, and considering the size of the Death-Star, the reactor, and the same the needed vents have to have their capacity, please read the description of the Chernobyl catastrophe - it was steam which exploded
• as for the protection of Death-Star with these "too big vents", it is said explicitly in the movie, that the commander of the station was so keen to report to the emperor about his victory over rebellion, that he decided to leave behind the major protecting fleet (i.e. not waiting for it), I believe that the Death-Star, as modern cruisers was designed to operate in battle groups, when it is supported by smaller ships

Someone can say that because the Titanic, which supposed to be unsinkable, did sink, or World War II bombers had "blind" spots, or our TVs do not have a GPS embedded, than our Universe has major design flows, because who would design a bomber which can be shot down - it makes no sense. I would say that the need for a protocol droid to win a 100m sprint run is the same as having a GPS in my TV.

Seems like no one have noticed that there is no fission reactor yet. So far just supporting technologies were tested, i.e. they build the Stirling engine with a heat exchanger.
So cool down, and spread a good word about the nuclear energy, so that when the time comes there will be no misinformation and too high blood pressure on neither of sides.

As far as I see no one forbids Murdoch charging for its news, people just say that he will not do any money out of it.
Everyone is free to create any business model one wishes, unless he expects people to be forced to use his business model to guarantee his profit. The government should take care, that the playground is equal for everybody, and that the consumers have a choice, I mean the real choice. Of course no one should be taxed for the fact that one exists and breaths.
If you want to charge for the air you can try, but you cannot forbid people breath, if you want to charge for news, you can do it, but people are free to communicate, since the events which happen are nobody's property. The history belongs to everyone, so nobody can claim exclusive rights to it. One can claim rights to the media, delivery, etc. but not the history.
Stone-tool makers and blacksmiths also went out of business, maybe some day also programmers (who knows).

BTW. If someone wants to give something for free, it is also his very right to do this.

In my opinion the analogy with mart or gas station is biased. It is more like one wrote his own book then went to a book store and asked "is it yours?", and got an answer "of course, you have to pay, and cannot use it in other way as to read silently for yourself". The point was to show that their, so called "software" is a one line code "isOurs() { return true; }".

One cannot build a sane legal system on the idea that one entity claims by default the ownership of all the goods, and if by chance one owns something, it is his responsibility to prove they are wrong. Of course it has not happened yet, but the presented story shows it is the way it goes.

I think it IS easy for an average Joe to put a CD into a computer drive having a proper manual (with pictures). In former times, when there were no pre-installed OSes, somehow people had managed to read and understand manuals.

Well, maybe not carries, but US government lobbying over companies is not a rarity

I think that such an attitude just puts more arguments in the hands of companies like RIAA when convincing politicians with tighter control and stronger regulations.
I like watching movies myself, but from the perspective, I think than in most of the cases I just wasted my time. It is far better to learn something or do some sport.

Issuing a "faulty" patent should be treated (by the law) like building a faulty bridge.
Additionally (maybe) no license for issuing patents in case of a willful wrongdoing.