Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est

  1. #1
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est



    ContentsThe Battle of Kursk Part 1 by Limskj.
    Nanotechnology by Saint Nicholas.
    Storytelling in Video Games by rez.
    Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part II by Lord Rahl.
    The K-T Extinction Event by René Artois.
    Political Theories Part 1: Equality by René Artois.





    From the Editor:

    Greetings all,

    It is cold. Unless you happen to be some of the lucky few who live in areas nearer to the equator, I'm sure that it won't have escaped your notice that it is rather chilly outside. It is, of course, as anyone blessed with a calender will be able to tell you, coming up to mid-November so you would expect it to be cold. I live in Edinburgh and have done on and off for the past 3 years so I am used to the less than clement weather. However, I am not used to having to pay through the nose for my gas and electricity. Today, British Gas, one of the largest energy suppliers in the UK announced that its prices would go up by 7%, which is double the rate of inflation. You have to question the timing of this announcement, really. Raising the prices at a time when electricity and gas will be at its peak demand may make sound economic sense but it doesn't half make them look like a bunch of :wub:s. I watched the managing director of British Gas being grilled on the BBC news and the presenter was satisfyingly vitriolic.

    British Gas has 8 million customers, the vast majority of whom will be sitting in the cold wondering whether they can afford to put the heating on after this price hike. The prices are set to go up in December, well before it really starts to get extremely cold, which is normally seen around the months of January and February.

    Combine this price increase with the wide-ranging welfare cuts, and it could be a very miserable winter for Great Britain.

    On a brighter note, you will notice - hopefully - two new writers amongst our ranks: Saint Nicholas, who will be known to most as the firm but fair hand of justice in the Thema Devia and other Games, Activities, and Chat forums, and René Artois, a fresh and very welcome face in Content who has made a strong start to what I hope will be a long and fruitful career.

    Jom




    Limskj
    Limskj has become something of our resident history buff here at The Helios, despite the fact that we also have rez on the team. He has treated us so far with a series of articles on the Eastern Front in the Second World War, and he is continuing in this theme with an article about the largest tank battle in the history of warfare: Kursk. The battle, or rather series of operations, itself was on an enormous scale with millions of men and thousands of armoured vehicles and aircraft taking part, and it would be the last German offensive to be mounted on this front.

    The Battle of Kursk

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    After the defeat and terrible loss of life at Stalingrad, defeat seemed almost inevitable to the German High Command (OKW). The military weight of the Western Allies was noticeable at this time, while the German withdrawal from North Africa threatened to crush Italian hopes of a new empire. The continued allied bombings had also become significant, forcing the Luftwaffe to divert substantial air forces to defend the homeland.

    At this crucial time, Field Marshall von Manstein had executed a masterful recapture of Kharkov, injecting some muscle into the OKW. In a bid to halt the Russian advance, OKW considered two options:

    The first option, supported by Guderian and Manstein (the best German field commanders) and others, suggests fully utilizing the superiority of the German commanders and soldiers in tactics, command and fighting, by a strategy of dynamic mobile defence that would cause great losses to the Russians in a series of local clashes. The overall goal was to delay and stop the Russians, as victory was no longer possible.

    The second option, the enthusiastic-optimistic option, was proposed by General Zeitzler, Chief of Staff of the German Army. He suggests concentrating almost all German tanks and other forces to destroy most of the Russian tanks in a decisive battle, thereby (hopefully) regaining the initiative. Zeitzler proposed that the most suitable place for the battle was the Kursk salient, a wide open space of land around the city of Kursk. Here, the Germans surrounded the Russians on three sides. As it is obvious that the Russians would maintain a large armoured force there, the plan was to encircle them in a classic Blitzkrieg style pincer movement with German Tanks coming from the North and South, before finally destroying the Russian tanks. This plan was code-named Operation Citadel.

    Hitler, upon discussion with his Generals, discovered that each plan had a problem.

    The main problem with Zeitzler’s plan to attack the Kursk salient, was that aerial photos revealed the Russians building dense and deep fortifications for the sole purpose of countering such an attack. The attack would be direct charge against a dense wall of anti-tank defences. General von Mellenthin warned that such an attack would be a ‘totenritt’ – a ride to death, for the German tanks. Hitler himself admitted his uncertainty of the plan, saying that it churned his guts thinking of it.

    The main problem with Guderian’s plan was that it lacked the charm, enthusiasm and optimistic hope of major change that Zeitzler’s plan possessed. Hitler the enthusiast ordered that Zeitzler’s plan be put into action, the launch date delayed to allow the accumulation of the new Tiger and Panther tanks as well as the Elefant tank destroyer. He assured himself that the addition of these powerful new tanks will offset the odds in favour of the Germans. D-Day was set as 4 July 1943.

    The Germans prepared as best they could. The entire battlefield was air-photographed. Commanders visited the fronts to observed intended routes, all available forced were concentrated in the North and South. 50 German divisions were involved, including 17 armoured and mechanized divisions as well as the Waffen-SS tank divisions Leibstandarte (Hitler's bodyguards), Totenkopf (Death's head), and Das Reich (The Reich). All available air units and artillery were concentrated.

    The problem was, the Russians found out about it through their Lucy spy network. The Russians obtain complete plans of the German attack, with Russian military intelligence verifying the accuracy of the information. Once verification was complete, defence preparations began.
    The Russians prepared eight separate defence lines, one behind the other. The entire strategic mobile reserve was positioned behind these lines to be ready to receive the German attackers should the defence lines collapse.

    The Russian plan was simple: let the Germans attack as planned along the defences. After the German tanks are destroyed, the Russians will begin an offensive North and South of the salient, pushing the Germans back west.

    The density of the Russian defence was not to be underestimated: 1.3 million soldiers with 3 600 tanks, 20 000 guns which included 6 000 76mm anti-tank guns, and 2 400 aircraft concentrated in and around the Kursk salient. This combined force makes up a fifth of the total Russian military personnel, over a third of the tanks and over a quarter of total Russian air power. About 3 400 mines were laid per kilometre, half of them anti-tank ones. Thousands of kilometres of anti-tank trenches and fortifications were dug and filled with anti-tank guns. The guns were organized into groups of 10, each commanded by an officer and fired at the same target. The expert camouflage laid meant that the Germans could not see them until they fired. Even the Russian air attacks were delayed until most of the German armour was in the trap.


    Saint Nicholas
    Saint Nicholas is the newest edition to The Helios and this edition he has penned a piece on the fascinating world of nanotechnology, from its beginnings to current applications to future uses of it. It's a very fast-moving field with new ideas constantly being dreamt up. Of particular interest is its application in medicine and surgery, but I'll let him explain more.

    Nanotechnology
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Nanotechnology, what is that you say? Well, think of a world where in your arteries there are microscopic medical implants busily diagnosing ailments and fighting disease; a world where soldiers are equipped with a military battle suit like you’ve seen in those futuristic movies which are capable of deflecting explosions and providing great protection. Think of a world where computer chips are no bigger than a speck of dirt on your desk and a hundred times more powerful than the chips of today.

    Nanotechnology has been a much discussed topic in recent times and it has been a point of contention in some scientific circles. But what exactly does nano mean, and what exactly is the big hullabaloo over it?
    Think of the smallest thing you can imagine, got it? Ok, well nanotechnology is even smaller. It is engineering and science on the scale of atoms and molecules, invisible to the naked human eye. Nanotechnology is the manipulation and operation of tiny mechanical devices on the smallest possible scale; nothing is smaller than a nano, at least not yet..

    So how small are we talking exactly? Typical nanomaterials range from 0.1 and 100 nanometres (nm). Confused? Indeed. 1 nm is equivalent to one billionth of a metre (10-9 m). So as you can see, we’re talking super small here. What’s that old saying, good things come in small packages? An apt description of nanotechnology for sure, though I don’t think the original author of that phrase had nanomaterials in mind when he uttered those words.

    So how did it all begin? In 1959 a man by the name of Richard Feynman had a brilliant idea, a bright spark. After giving a lecture discussing the ideas of building things on the molecular and atomic scales, he paused for a moment and thought to himself.. ‘I wonder if I could somehow write the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica onto the head of a pin.’ The idea of nanotechnology was born in an instant.

    Years passed, the idea of nanotechnology persisted, but never became a reality until 1981 when an IBM scientist in Switzerland constructed the world’s first scanning tunnelling microscope (STM). The microscope allowed the user to see single atoms by scanning the surface of a silicone crystal. Over the next ten years other significant advances were made in the field. More scanning instruments such as the atomic force microscope (AFM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were developed which allowed for greater image capture at the atomic level.
    Eventually after much research scientists managed to manufacture two components of nanomaterials that would go on to be used by much of the world today. These components can be found in fibres, long threads and fabrics, they can also be used to create tough plastics, computer chips and circuits and many other novel materials we use every day.

    The level of engineering expertise at the nanotechnology level is quite complex. When dealing with things on this scale one must double and triple check any and every calculation. Scientists have had to come up with new ways to construct these systems to cater for their special needs. The traditional top-down manufacturing practice has been turned on its head to incorporate a bottom-up approach, starting from nothing and working your way upwards.

    In the right conditions, certain types of nanomaterials have been shown to actually assemble themselves, without the need for human influence or interference. It is thought that microelectronic devices could even be ‘persuaded’ to grow from the ground up, in the same manner as trees. But it doesn’t stop there; scientists are even looking at ways to substitute other materials into the nanomaterial manufacturing process. DNA, viruses, bacteria and many other things of this nature have been touted as next in line for substitution.
    In the short term, nanotechnology will provide advances in the field of medicine through the development of new processes and medical devices capable of wonderful and exciting things. Nanotechnology is also going to have a profound effect on the computing world, as everything starts to be manufactured and made possible on the atomic and molecular level, computers and their components are going to shrink to much smaller sizes.

    There is no doubt that nanotechnology and materials have great potential to help the human race and advance us all to the next level. In medicine doctors and scientists are developing new ways to deliver drugs to ensure greater efficiency and effectiveness, targeting specific tumours and or cancers for elimination while leaving the rest of the body unharmed. Scientists are even discovering ways of growing new organs from scratch with the assistance of tiny probes and other technologies.

    In computer terms, nanoscience will lead to much smaller and more powerful microchips equipped with greater capacity and speed. Your computer hard drive (HDD) will most likely be dramatically reduced in size as data is stored more efficiently. Scientists have conducted a number of experiments and results have been coming back very positive. The experiments have shown it might be possible to use bacteria to manufacture tiny parts for computers. Pretty nifty hey?
    In environmental science, nanotechnology is providing scientists with ways to screen out and detect toxins in bacteria present in water supplies.

    The technology has also been utilised to clear up organic, heavy metal and chemical pollution in special circumstances. In fact, we’re already seeing the benefits of nanoscience. Nanoscience is responsible for the development of a device known as the catalytic converter. This device detoxifies engine fumes around the world, cleaning the air and dispersing harmful greenhouse gases and other toxic substances. Without the invent of nanotechnology this wouldn’t be possible. Other advances in this field include much more efficient batteries which last longer, are smaller and more powerful, advances in solar power generation and retention and even alterations to fuel cells and diesel additives that improve overall fuel efficiency.

    LED technology is changing too, LED’s could even replace the traditional light bulb found in homes entirely, provided great energy savings and greater efficiency.
    Now the most exciting part, the military applications. Governments around the world are throwing money at research to develop new lightweight equipment and weapons manufactured using nanotechnology. More excitingly governments are investing heavily into the development of battle suits that are bulletproof, can morph and change their shape to suit the environment (camouflage), even stiffen to provide support as a splint or bandage for a broken bone, finally the suits would be equipped with nanosensors that could detect chemical and biological threats to the soldier. Think the HEV suit from Half-life!

    So it all sounds pretty exciting right? Well despite this there have been some groups who aren’t at all amused about nanotechnology and its implications. Even though the technology is not widely used commercially at this time; environmental groups have grave concerns about human health and the environment in general.
    Critics of the technology have called for a halt on research, until such time as we know the full effects of nanoparticles and any potential toxic effects they may have.

    They also want clear regulations developed to govern the use and development of the technology, probably something that isn’t a bad idea to be honest. A few experiments have been conducted to deduce the effects of nanomaterials. Animal trials in 2004 concluded that high concentrations of the material caused damage to the lungs of mice and rats and even forms of brain damage to fish, discovered in a further experiment. But that is common sense, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing right?

    In 2003 Greenpeace commissioned a report acknowledging that there are some risks in using nanotechnology but that the field of nanotechnology could generate some serious innovations that would prove to be beneficial to the environment.
    It is clear that nanotechnology could have many uses for us as a species. No doubt the innovations, improvements and ways of manufacturing things will be positives. But there are as yet unknown and unconfirmed dangers in using the technology. Much more research and public debate about the issue is needed before we seriously start to forget the old ways and embrace this new technology openly. With great risk comes great reward, but also great consequences and greater responsibility.


    rez
    This edition, rez has chosen a subject which will be familiar to the vast majority of readers, as this is, after all, a gaming website: storytelling in video games. Some video games, admittedly, do it better than others. I remember my reaction to finding out the huge twist in the plot of Knights of the Old Republic, an RPG with one of the best storylines I have encountered. Other games with excellent storylines are essentially anything done by Bioware: Baldur's Gate 2, Dragon Age. Here, rez examines the strategies that games designers use to spin a good yarn.

    Storytelling in Video Games
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I imagine that almost everyone that reads this short article will, like me, be a fan of video games. There's probably a very large percentage of you that consider many games to be a legitimate artform and something that deserves a well constructed plot with memorable characters that amplify the gameplay experience. But all too often our demographic is painted as a mass of sexually frustrated, physically challenged sociopaths with only the simplest of compulsions to attain high scores and achievements. Now i'm not saying that's an entirely inaccurate assesment; you would have to search far and wide to find a man more sexually frustrated than myself. But its not all that simple, quite a few of us enjoy an engrossing tale as much as an engorging bosom. Well some of us anyway...

    Thinking back, I can probably count the number of truly compelling video game storylines on my fingers. This is slightly more condemning than usual in my case as I'm only sporting nine digits but thats another story for another time. Its a little bit too easy to just blame the apparent lack of an engaging narrative in your game on the writers. A game like Wet springs to mind as a perfect example of lazy character design that reeks so sordidly of cliched templates it might as well have come off of a robotic assembly line. When you start out with a two dimensional protagonist, a Duke Nukem hand me down with an overly confident catch-phrase for every occasion, then there really isn't much hope for the story to truly blossom. Relatable characters need flaws, real flaws that precipitate disaster and failure. Not the cooly manufactured, Hollywood version of flaws winding around glamourised versions of alchoholism, sociopathy or anger issues. These watermarked, factory-press features only serve to send our starting characters down paths that we as the audience have walked with a thousand different versions of our current protagonist.

    But herein lies the problem. Character development requires failure. Video game progression requires success. How do you create the feeling of a character facing challenges, making mistakes and learning lessons that we can relate to if he's always succeeding? The simple, easy solution is to make those success ephemoral. Trick the character into fighting for something only to find out that it was a mirage, or their success is betrayed in some fashion.

    Sorry but your princess is in another castle.

    Sound familiar? More recent, and may I say excellently excecuted, examples include the death sequences in Modern Warfare 1 and 2. These dips into despair practically render the level's achievements useless and divert the plot from a steady progression into more of the rollercoaster that a real narrative requires. The Modern Warfare series has realised that in order to create a plot structure that evokes the sort of relatability that comes from failure or despair one has to use multiple protagonists as vehicles for the story, to be disposed of as neccessary.

    However, there are other ways and means to affect character growth and real narrative development. What might seem like the easiest option is to actually have the characters fail once in a while but this requires a level of creative skill that isn't always met by those who attempt it. To my mind the finest example of a character genuinely failing is Metal Gear Solid where Solid Snake gets caught with his pants down and captured almost entirely out of the blue. What follows is a genuinely compelling interrogation sequence that blends gameplay with story seamlessly. The effect was unfortunately tried again in the sequels 2 and 3 (perhaps 4 but I haven't played it yet) but this time around we had seen it all before and they acted more like self referential jack-off sessions than any real attempt to enhance the player experience.

    Half-life comes in at a close second for blending character failure with strong gameplay. I'm sure a lot of you remember fighting your way through those elite, black-op femme fatales and finally seeing a health and suit charger at the end of the tunnel only to realise all too late that you had walked right into a trap. A trap that then takes us to a delightfully death-star-esque excecution attempt and leaves you with only your trusty crowbar in hand. Freeman is then forced to build up his arsenal again as he works his way back into the complex to take his foes by suprise and get some payback.

    I hate to sound like the guy who says 'It's not as good as it used to be' and believe me thats not what I believe at all. I just use those examples from older games because they were particularly vivd experiences for me. Something I cannot say for a franchise like Gears of War which, whilst mechanically excellent and a real thrill to play, is pretty much the poster boy for whats wrong with story telling in videogames.

    The scene is set with Marcus Fenix in a jail cell. Not a bad idea if they actually went ahead and developed that story arc properly. Unfortunately we get a couple of minor allusions to a murky past and before you know it you're saddling up with an overtly aggresive meat head and his wise-cracking, ass-kicking side-kick. The two soon become four, which oddly enough seems to be the perfect number of men to take on a planetary sized enemy army, and they merrily dance their way to victory without breaking a sweat. Who cares right? The gameplay was ace. True, but then Epic decided they actually wanted their characters to somehow become relatable. Gears of War 2 started with the right intentions by trying to make the war seem bigger than a four man squad. But I never could understand the decision to designate these 4 man squads by letters of the alphabet. Its as if nobody at Epic was capable of basic maths; if there's a squad for every letter of the alphabet (26) and each squad is made up of 4 men then there can only be 104 men in the entire planetary infantry corps! Since no other squad designation is given this just undermines the actually quite impressive work that went into creating the illusion of a vast military. But hey thats just a pet peeve of mine. If they had only called the squads something like Charlie two-niner or some such... ah i'm getting off track again.

    My number one problem with Gears of War was their desperate attempt to make their characters at least a little human. Dom's quest to find his wife is so utterly ham acted and cliche written that it just becomes a joke. I'll bet the writers thought they were really onto something spectacular when they came up with the idea of Dom's wife as too far gone to be saved. But it all loses a lot of its dramatic appeal when the character forced to mercy kill his wife has a head that looks like a breeze block and an excecution pistol that's bigger than the entire torso of the poor woman. But all of this pales in comparison to the real issue that Gears of War brings to light. Wise cracking douche bags make for terrible in-game characters at the best of times. But if you want to portray a tender moment for your protagonist in a cut-scene the mood will invariably be ruined by the return to the in-game experience and your player character's cheerful commentary of current events. Right after my game's killing of maria, Dom jogs away from the corpse of his freshly euthanised wife only to cheekily shout "dibs!" as he spots a couple of grenades lying on the floor. This could have been even worse if the build up to Maria's death had been written and performed properly but thankfully the entire thing was just a comic aside that didn't spoil my mood too much as I blasted my way through Locust central with my three best buddies.

    How could it have been written properly? Well for starters you can't just throw a new person on screen and practically instruct the player that your character has an emotional attatchment to them. This is the sort of thing you actually have to demonstrate with interaction and yes it does take a bit of time. In Gears of War 2 we are given the fact that Dom really wants to find his wife, a picture of her and a short scene where he wakes up in bed and sees her. We get nothing other than 'oh I guess he loves her' out of this so its no suprise when nobody gives a toss that she dies. This is by no means a problem that is limited to Gears of War, its just a great example. There are other contender's like Dead Space for the almost entirely absent explanation for why we should care about his woman. But who gets it right and how? Its a little embarassing to go back to MGS but again it did a great job in throwing two characters like Meryl and Snake together and making you believe the bond they begin to forge rather than handing you a pre-fabricated relationship for you to choke down. The same can be said for Half-life 2's Freeman and Alyx Vance who even without ever having a conversation manage to forge a believable link through the ups and downs that they face together. The pre-made relationship with barney is tastefully understated and kept on the sidelines because the writers at Valve are actually capable of banging two rocks together. But what be worse than a studio that actually did know how to create a close to perfect on-screen relationship before going and ruining everything in a sequel? Thats right Ubisoft, I'm talking to you. The Sands of Time union between the Prince and Farah was superbly written as not only were two characters believably linked but the characters themselves were wonderfully imagined creations that had relatability stamped all over them. Why Ubisoft thought they could get away with replacing the two geniously written characters with a couple of cardboard cut-out cliches and the excellent storyline with a series of mind numbingly repetitive levels I'll never know...

    In recent years some video game developers have been taking a different tack with their storytelling and this is something that I welcome in Bioware's Mass Effect series as an astounding level of detail has been achieved in the game world as well as making memorable characters with rich backstories and, shock horror, believable emotions. Its still tough to make an rpg of this sort where the protagonist doesn't act like a bit of a plank. Only Shepherd comes in three flavours of Plank: Naughty, Nice and Meh. The other direction to go for is extremely linear character design where everything has been written to be a certain way, just like a book or film. This has advantages in that your player character will certainly be more compelling but gameplay tends to suffer as it feels less and less like we have a say in whats going on and more like an elaborate comic book. A game like Heavy Rain ought to be commended for its attempt to blend multiple plot choices with very detailed character design as this requires a web of choices that actually match the characteristics of the protagonists and antagonists. But in the end the strictness of the web's needs meant that gameplay as a whole suffered since we are only really affecting the game at a few choice points and everywhere else just seems mundane.

    I've no doubt that story telling in the videogame world will improve in the future. As long as there are companies out there that still consider what they are making to be art then we will have great things in store for us.


    Lord Rahl
    Lord Rahl continues his exposé on how much he loves Star Trek, delivering the sort of analysis that only a die-hard fan can deliver. This edition he talks a great deal about the entity Q and his dealings with the Enterprise. I was always a fan of Q myself, and found any episode involving him to be very enjoyable indeed.

    Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part II
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    In the last edition of the Helios I explained, in short, the histories of two of television's most influential and successful franchises, that of Star Wars and Star Trek. I am a big fan of basically anything science fiction but as I mentioned in the last Helios I love Star Trek. Over the past several years, perhaps five or so, I've become enamored with the franchise and I'm not sure exactly when this happened or how but I do know why. This is the reason I am writing this, so that others can understand why I love Star Trek. Maybe some of you will understand what I will talk about and probably most of you won't but I think that is sort of what Star Trek is. You either get it or you don't. Everyone likes Star Wars because that's what Star Wars was meant for, the masses. That's not what Star Trek was meant for. It was one man's vision, Gene Roddenberry's, of what the future could be like. But where do I start? I guess I should start where everyone starts, the beginning.


    So, I start with Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, and his vision of Star Trek. Few people realize that Star Trek was not Roddenberry's only or favorite idea to put on the television screen. He had other ideas that he pitched to the studio, CBS, like one where an astronaut crash lands on a planet where women are the rulers and men are submissive, and another where a human-looking android crash lands on Earth with a complete loss of memory so the android learns to become a human while also trying to figure out what he/it is, but these ideas were not sexy enough for CBS. Finally, Roddenberry and his companions got CBS to give Star Trek a chance. The pilot episode, "The Cage" was just interesting enough for CBS to give Star Trek a try, with some big changes between the pilot and the series, however, including changing the captain to William Shatner and having Majel Barrett, Roddenberry's wife, not be second in command of the Enterprise (because women can't have that sort of rank). The eventual crew of, arguably, the world's most recognizable starship represented many cultures, and even race. Mr. Spock, the Vulcan, was completely unemotional and non-human, obviously, (although he was half human). Hikaru Sulu was an Asian at the helm and Roddenberry wanted him to represent all of Asia. Remember there were wars on the Asian continent at that time so Sulu represented the peace in the Star Trek universe and was an Asia unusually positively depicted at the time. Another culturally significant crew member was Lieutenant Uhura. This lovely woman was the ever diligent communications officer who was one of the first African-Americans to be given a prominent role in television. Since the show, Uhura has been seen as a character that African-Americans, those who watched Star Trek: The Original Series, looked up to and thought, "I could do that," as in achieving and gaining respect of everyone, despite their differences.

    But the crew of the USS Enterprise being very multicultural was not completely Gene Roddenberry's vision. It is how the crew members worked together and accomplished missions, objectives, or problems that made the show unique. Roddenberry's idea of the future in Star Trek takes place after a Third World War where the human race got itself together and rid itself of hunger, money, poverty, racism, etc. Roddenberry was sure an idealist, and one that was not fond of organized religion at all, but his ideals were the basis for a show where these vices of humanity were still dealt with in episode after episode throughout the vast galaxy and the best traits of humanity would prevail in the end. Optimism of the future was part of Roddenberry's idea and if you watch almost any Star Trek episode or movie then you will see this same optimism. If anything, Star Trek teaches us how to be better as humans/people. We see these human crew members of the USS Enterprise act, mostly, without the vices that are so prevalent today and throughout our history to helps solve the same problems that plague the galaxy. It is my belief that the greatest contribution Star Trek gives us is that it shows us what it means to be human. Often it is through such notable aliens or non-humans throughout Star Trek history like Spock, Data, and Word that we learn this ongoing lesson. This lesson of what it means to be human is hardly more evident than in the episode "Déjà Q". Now, before I explain this episode a bit I'd like to acknowledge that the episode actually made one of Star Trek's more annoying characters and made him forever be one of my favorites. That's quite a feat. In "Déjà Q" an omnipotent being, Q, is stripped of his powers by other omnipotent beings all a part of what's called the "Q Continuum" and is sent to the USS Enterprise-D, the one captained by the legendary Jean-Luc Picard, because they are the only beings in the entire universe he could actually consider friends, although he might not understand the word's meaning like human's do. Q had, in previous episodes, done some pretty shady things to the Enterprise crew such as launching them thousands of light years across the galaxy to meet an enemy they would never forget, the Borg, among other nasty things, so the crew, especially Picard, were not very fond of being Q's babysitter.

    But Q at the time was entirely human yet he had no idea what it meant to be human. He discovered the sensation of pain, figured out what a hungry stomach feels like, and learned what it meant to be a vulnerable human. However, those were not the important lesson learned. During his brief stay on the Enterprise - and you can watch the entire episode by clicking on the link with the episode's name I posted instead of reading all of this background - Q's companion, and someone Picard assigns to Q to keep an eye on him and out of trouble, is Data the android. Q has many questions about being human and Data does try his best to give sufficient answers, but in the end Data is still an android, incapable of being human, let alone having feelings and emotions. Nonetheless, Data alays strives to become more human, something which Q does not understand. There is one thing that Data does in the episode that truly vexes him though. Q is attacked by intelligent, non-corporeal lifeforms that exist as swirls of ionized gas that he tortured in the past and Data saves Q only to be electrocuted and have his systems shut off. Q is so disgusted at this point that Data tried to save his miserable non-omnipotent (human) life that he leaves the Enterprise, but not before whispering the disabled Data this, "There are creatures in the universe who would consider you the ultimate achievement, android. No feelings, no emotions, no pain – and yet you covet those qualities of Humanity. Believe me, you're missing nothing. But if it means anything to you, you're a better Human than I." It is the greatness of Star Trek, and its writers, that brought out this irony; the "perfect" man, Data, the android who strives to be more human but never can ends up being the one to teach the once omnipotent being turned human what it means to be just that, human. After Q leaves the ship he attempts to selflessly sacrifice himself so that the Enterprise can survive and save a planet (watch the episode to understand it better). Because of this act Q is given his powers back by the Continuum and then this happens...


    That may be very silly but the episode is great and it is one where you can more fully understand what Roddenberry's Star Trek is all about. I don't know if I explained my points or myself well enough here. Hopefully I've said enough to at least give the slightest credit to what Gene Roddenberry envisioned. It is difficult to do so, explaining what hundreds of episodes and eleven movies mean is a difficult task without writing an entire book(!), and watching it all would be much more educational. In any case, it is the vision of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, of our possible future, that is, in itself, a wonderful ideal and the result were five television series and eleven movies (so far) that showed us what it means to be human. Sometimes the greatest things in life come from ideals and I believe Star Trek is one of them.

    Until next time, readers. My following editorial will again refer to my love of Star Trek and...TECHNOBABBLE!!!


    René Artois
    René Artois is another recent signing to The Helios and for his début edition he has written an impressive two articles for you to sink your teeth into, the subjects of which are on a scientific and political theme. The first is about the K-T extinction event, where a mass dying of many species of dinosaur and other animals can be observed, theorised to have been caused by a massive meteor impact. The second is on the thorny issue of equality, which is always difficult as it's never possible to obtain true equality.

    The K-T Extinction Event or
    Asteroid Strike!

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Geological history is filled with world changing events on a scale unimaginable to the ordinary person. These events the creation of the moon when earth was still young, the closing of entire oceans such as the Iapetus, the opening of oceans such as the Atlantic (which is still happening now), worldwide glaciations and extinction events, such as the Permo-Triassic and indeed the K-T (Cretaceous-Tertiary) extinctions. Evidence for these events is usually hard to find and short of supply. Indeed to even gain knowledge of them, we need to be able to read small amounts of evidence, hidden in rocks millions, even billions of years old. Even then, one must be able to "think outside the box" quite alot in order to connect it to the actual event. This can be seen in how a vast majority of people (scientists included) did not believe in the theory of tectonic drift until the last 40 or so years. Indeed, I believe alot more credit should go to geologists and palaeontologists who have interpreted the evidence than they currently get. Anyway, on to business! I have spoken broadly about the evidence of past events as a whole, but what is the specific evidence for the K-T boundary extinction 65 million years ago? Not only that, but what is the theory I am going to be looking at? As you have probably guessed from the title, the main theory for this extinction is an asteroid strike.

    65 ma (million years ago) it is believed an asteroid the size of Mount Everest hit the earth at a speed 60 times greater than the speed of sound. This impact is believed to have killed off 70% of the world's species- including dinosaurs. So what is the evidence that this extinction ever took place? The K-T boundary on the geological timescale: when examining sedimentary rocks, geologists noticed that there was a far greater amount of fossils below this boundary (before the extinction) but when you moved up and looked after the boundary, there were far fewer, and many species found before never reappear again (yes, including dinosaurs). This show that at the K-T boundary, something must have happened to kill these species, and as so many were permanently wiped out, it showed it must have been something on an enormous scale, such as a large volcanic event, an asteroid strike or global climate change. Importantly, the above evidence is worldwide, not local. This shows that it must have been something which affected the whole world in such a way that we have never seen before.

    But what made many scientists settle on the asteroid strike theory?

    • Iridium- found in relatively huge quantities at the K-T boundary, iridium is an element found in either the earth's mantle or in asteroids. This led researchers to believe it must have been either an asteroid strike, bringing the iridium from space, or a mass volcanic event (similar to the basalt flood events which form the Siberian Traps), bringing the iridium up from the earth's mantle.
    • The similarities between rocks found at the K-T boundary, and those found in known asteroid craters (such as Meteor Crater in Arizona) such as shocked quartz. Shocked quartz is quartz which has been hit with enough energy to completely smash it into a fine powder. Now as any self-respecting geologist or chemist will know, the amount of energy needed to do this is huge (it has been found after underground nuclear testing). This amount of energy could however, be provided by an asteroid hitting the quartz. The presence of this evidence rules out the theory of volcanic activity because it is only formed by impact, meaning a volcano would not be able to form it.
    • The above two points were also used as evidence for the location of the impact. They are found in greater quantities the nearer you get towards the Caribbean, it was discovered before the crater was found.
    • Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico- this 125km in diameter crater was found by the Pemex oil company, which was surveying the sea floor looking for possible sources of oil. The crater had huge quantities of iridium and shocked quartz. The size of the crater also corresponded to a huge impact. To put it into perspective, Meteor Crater in Arizona is 3/4 of a mile in diameter and was formed by an asteroid 15m in diameter.
    • Furthering this evidence, the famous sinkholes or "Cenotes" in the Yucatan peninsula are believed to have been formed by the same impact because they are not found on known fault lines and they are found in a ring aligned perfectly with the Chicxulub crater, and are now believed to be the furthermost outer ring of the crater.

    All of this evidence has been used to back up the "Alvarez Theory" (the asteroid theory), which goes as follows. An asteroid, 6 miles wide and weighing 1 trillion tonnes impacted with the earth 65 million years ago, the asteroid landed in a shallow sea in what is now the Gulf of Mexico, causing everything within 1000 miles to be incinerated in hot gas and fire, as well as causing tidal waves. An estimated 500 million tonnes of hot rock was thrown into the air, many pieces even going into orbit, then re-entering the atmosphere, coming down all over the earth. This caused many forest fires, and the theory emerged that most significant life was destroyed by these fires. These fires also caused large scale sudden climate change, dust and ash also blocking out the sun. Sulphur dioxide was also released into the atmosphere, combining with the other factors in prolonging a 5 degree celsius drop in temperature, also causing acid rain. This reacted with limestone, releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide into the air, and as forests were finding it hard to rejuvenate, exacerbated the effects. This caused the ecosystem of the earth to collapse for 100s of years, leaving only small mammals and primitive birds and reptiles alive. This is why the impact was good for us in the long run, as it meant our mammal ancestors could thrive and last long enough to evolve into us.

    You see, every cloud has a silver lining! Thank you for taking the time to read the first of hopefully many Helios contributions!


    Political Theories Pt.1: Equality
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Equality is a key concept that has emerged in modern society, starting off as a radical movement influenced by changes such as the American and French revolutions. It has developed from past views that society and life in general was based around a natural hierarchy, so that attempts to bring equality was going against the laws of nature, as Plato, the Athenian philosopher argued of attempts at political equality in the third century BC. In modern society, equality is much more widely accepted to the point where most political ideologies accept some form of egalitarianism, for example the opening lines of the US Declaration of independence (Thomas Jefferson) are: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.” However, there are differing views of equality, which can be divided into 3 main types: formal or foundational equality, equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

    Formal equality, although essentially the same idea, differs from foundational equality slightly because the latter is viewed in a religious sense, and is the belief that all men have equal worth in the eyes of God. Formal equality on the other hand, is based on equality in front of the law rather than God, meaning people have equal worth legally and have the same rights. An advocate of foundational and formal equality was John Locke, who wrote that “All men, as creatures of God are equally endowed with natural rights, namely the rights to life, liberty and property.” However, Locke did not speak of equal rights for women. This is because Locke's views on formal equality did not extend beyond those who are alike being treated equally. This does not seem radical now but it was in the 16th century when Locke was writing in the aftermath of the English Civil War. Formal equality can be extended into Gender Equality, which was advocated a lot my Mary Wollstonecraft. Wollstonecraft was influenced heavily by Locke's writings on Formal Equality, however she disagreed on his views on women, writing in “A Vindication on the Rights of Women”, that equality applied no matter what gender you were, effectively extending the ideas of Formal Equality so that they applied to women as well as men. Wollstonecraft believed that gender was irrelevant in day-to-day life, therefore everybody should be entitled to the same treatment and education etc. She believed the education system should be reformed because like society, it continually reinforced the ideas of female subservience and man's dominant position within society, installing in women from a young age, characteristics such as dependency, weakness and inferiority. Wollstonecraft believed that the “divine right of husbands” should end, making husband and wife equal in marriage as well as society, which would lead to a stronger and happier marriage for both. The idea of Formal Equality differs from the idea of Equality of Opportunity because the latter extends the idea into everyone not only being treated equally, but everybody being able to have the same education so as to realise their true potential. Wollstonecraft advocated it to an extent as she wanted women to have the same opportunities in life as men. Formal Equality differs greatly from Equality of Outcome because advocates of the latter see it as not good enough, with people such as Marx calling it “Bourgeois Equality”, inferring it only truly applied to the landed gentry.

    Equality of opportunity is the belief that everyone should have equal chances in life to realise their full potential. There should be equal social treatment, as in Formal Equality but there can be inequality in some things on the basis of talent and merit, known as a meritocracy. This belief seeks to reward those who work hard, while giving everybody in society the opportunities to become unequal. This theory is widely endorsed today, by social democrats, modern liberals and conservatives. This belief is incompatible with equality of outcome because it centres around unequal distribution of income through individual effort, whereas the latter is based upon collective ownership of all assets. The theory is given legitimacy because of the idea of an “equal start”, giving way to (as Margaret Thatcher said) “the right to be unequal”, instilling the idea that hard work and talent gives way to rewards. Like other types of equality though, it does not accept the idea of inherited wealth such as the aristocracy, as it has not been earned. The belief sometimes, however, may lead to “positive discrimination” in order to give those in a poor background an equal start.

    Equality of Outcome is the belief that all should be distributed equally between everyone, so that there is no inequality on any kind of level, leading to complete fairness for all. This is the most radical form of equality, as it shifts attention away from the starting point in life to the end result. Jean Jacques Rousseau said that “no citizen should be rich enough to buy another and none should be poor enough as to sell himself”, showing how the belief focuses on combating social injustice when equality of opportunity is not enough to ensure equality. Critics of the theory however, argue that it is against nature as it rewards those who do not deserve to be rewarded, and does not encourage individual talent to come forward, thus encouraging inequality as those who are unequal due to not working hard are made equal. This theory not only differs from equality of opportunity, but contradicts it, because equality of opportunity focuses on making sure everybody is equal to do their best, whereas equality of outcome focuses on making sure everybody is equal even if they did not do their best.

    Thanks for reading, any feedback would be much appreciated, and make sure you have a read next edition for Political Theories Pt. 2: Liberalism!


    That’s all from The Helios for this edition. As always, I have my entire team of excellent writers to thank for putting in the time and effort to come up, once more, with a publication of the highest quality. It's great to constantly see fresh faces putting their names down and their time aside to bring you an interesting and informative edition of The Helios.

    After reading this edition, now would be an excellent time to pay a visit to one of the other TWC publications, which can be done by clicking on either of the images below.
    Last edited by Jom; February 03, 2011 at 09:21 AM.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  2. #2

    Default Re: Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est

    Excellent issue, and next time you will have to endure my Tory views once more

  3. #3
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Darling View Post
    Excellent issue, and next time you will have to endure my Tory views once more
    Would that be that poor people deserve to be cold as they don't have a butler to stoke up the fire?

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  4. #4

    Default Re: Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est

    Or those who did not choose to destroy my office at 30 Milbank

  5. #5
    René Artois's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    18,851

    Default Re: Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est

    All 100 of them?
    Oh and I have to say 100% agreement with the opening paragraph. My parent will be inviting our elderly neighbours to stay with us for a few weeks over Christmas. The old lady was literally in tears because they wouldn't be able to afford heating.
    Last edited by René Artois; November 13, 2010 at 01:28 PM.
    Bitter is the wind tonight,
    it stirs up the white-waved sea.
    I do not fear the coursing of the Irish sea
    by the fierce warriors of Lothlind.

  6. #6
    Legio's Avatar EMPRESS OF ALL THINGS
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chlοëtopia
    Posts
    43,774

    Default Re: Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est

    Jom's editorials get better each issue. I also enjoyed rez's piece on video games; as we have the same tastes in many genres.

  7. #7
    René Artois's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    18,851

    Default Re: Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est

    Just seen something:
    René Artois, a fresh and very welcome face in Content
    Been in content for over 6 months
    Bitter is the wind tonight,
    it stirs up the white-waved sea.
    I do not fear the coursing of the Irish sea
    by the fierce warriors of Lothlind.

  8. #8
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est

    Well, in my side of Content.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  9. #9
    Laetus
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    22

    Default Re: Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est

    ...pro patria vivendi

    First of all a salute to (war)gamers being social philosophers.

    Then a point of critique, or two. Open for discussion.
    Both in the nanotechnology and in the equality articles there is a tendency to quickly brush over the hard parts.
    In nano for instance of the top of my hat I remember the issue with nanoform titanoxide particles used in (ironically) ecological sunprotection lotions that were recently banned for dangers they posed to human health.
    The problem part is there and it is real.
    Though it is by far less exciting (and lucrative) to prove things in that arena (which is a problem the science-business as a whole suffers: Science in itself is not gainful activity and money for scientific endeavors tends to flow where people expect positive results (think fusion power: for over 60 years it is between "any day now" and "maximum 10 years" away, yet people still believe in it (and pump billions into research) because of the bright future it seems to promise)).

    Which in no way shall imply we stop researching nanotechnology or dreaming of its im- and ap- plications. Just be very careful around it and any other "wonder"-technologies.

    In the equality article my pet-peeve Mrs Maggie Thatcher, the Iron Maiden and european bridgehead of neo-liberal doublespeak is cited in a way that seemed to make her a real proponent of the "equality of opportunity" school of thought. Quite the contrary.
    Equality of opportunity implies equality of upbringing and schooling. Simple as that. So she was talking about it while with her socially divisive legislation she was destroying it for the Britons.
    I also love the part where Monsieur Artois quickly brushes over the "hereditary wealth" issue and sidelines it as something a dying species (aristocrats) has to concern itself with, when in reality it is THE key battleground where equality of opportunity is decided.

    Thanks for this invigorating read.
    You got me waiting for more
    Last edited by tofudog; November 27, 2010 at 06:36 AM. Reason: typo

  10. #10
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est

    Thanks for the interesting critique of the articles. It's not often that I find readers doing so and it's very refreshing to see it.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  11. #11
    René Artois's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    18,851

    Default Re: Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est

    Quote Originally Posted by tofudog View Post
    In the equality article my pet-peeve Mrs Maggie Thatcher, the Iron Maiden and european bridgehead of neo-liberal doublespeak is cited in a way that seemed to make her a real proponent of the "equality of opportunity" school of thought. Quite the contrary.
    Equality of opportunity implies equality of upbringing and schooling. Simple as that. So she was talking about it while with her socially divisive legislation she was destroying it for the Britons.
    I just used a single quote from the lady. Not sure how you got a real proponent of equality of oppurtunity from that. You said "she was talking about it" which is exactly what I meant, but as I thought it would be deviating from the topic somewhat to go on about Thatchers social and economic policies I left it out.
    Quote Originally Posted by tofudog View Post
    I also love the part where Monsieur Artois quickly brushes over the "hereditary wealth" issue and sidelines it as something a dying species (aristocrats) has to concern itself with, when in reality it is THE key battleground where equality of opportunity is decided.
    Sideline it where exactly? All that gets said is that inherited wealth goes against equality of oppurtunity. If you thought I was inferring it was dying out by the use of the word aristocracy, please feel free to use other examples such as "anybody with rich parents".
    Like other types of equality though, it does not accept the idea of inherited wealth such as the aristocracy, as it has not been earned. The belief sometimes, however, may lead to “positive discrimination” in order to give those in a poor background an equal start.
    Thank you come again. Please also keep in mind that I have just learned this stuff in a one hour lesson as I am still in school doing politics (we started the course in September - exam in January) and I have been "trained" somewhat to write only the bare necessities in an essay to avoid running out of time (this one was done in 30mins inc planning and without books etc as I thought it would be good revision practise for me)
    Last edited by René Artois; December 10, 2010 at 03:42 PM.
    Bitter is the wind tonight,
    it stirs up the white-waved sea.
    I do not fear the coursing of the Irish sea
    by the fierce warriors of Lothlind.

  12. #12
    Laetus
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    22

    Default Re: Helios 55 - Dulce et decorum est

    Dear Mr. Artois,
    please pardon the harsh tone of my reply. Had I known that this is just a platform for you to practice your writing I would have been more lenient.
    And in this light I think that our misunderstanding deserves further consideration. Your readers do not know what your stance is, if you are not telling. If you cite somebody in a certain context (here Mrs. Thatcher with thoughts on equality) without information as to your view of that, then your interested reader is most likely to assume it is a positive reference. In fact so much so that this is a rhetoric technique of lying without lying, and that was what I - please pardon me - thought what you were doing.
    Similarly the "sidelining" issue. I myself like to use the reference to medieval european society to show my view of current issues, but I have to explain what part is metaphor and what part is actual fact, otherwise my audience is as surely deceived as when I lie outright.
    The perfect essay is dancing on a razor´s edge between verbosity and sins of omission, you might say.
    With that out of the way I have to say I appreciate your efforts and I hope that my critique of your piece may help refine your style - and get a better grade .

    Merry christmas

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •