Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

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

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Helios 58 - Plus ultra



    Contents
    Events that shaped Britain pt. 1: Ancient Megatsunami by René Artois.
    The Sleeping Giants by Banned.
    The Green Economy by Jom.
    Videogame Trailers by rez.
    Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part IV by Lord Rahl.
    How representative is Parliament? by Major Darling.
    How do Grey Whales Navigate? by Incesticide.






    From the Editor:

    Greetings all,

    I've no doubt that those who follow The Helios more keenly than some others will notice that this edition is somewhat late in coming to your computer screens, and I must confess that the fault lies squarely on my shoulders. I won't turn my editorial space into something akin to a personal blog or livejournal entry: not yet, anyway. Maybe when I start self-harming I'll have something to write about but until then I'll sum up the reasons for this edition being late in 3 words: University, revision, finals, and you, dear readers, being an empathetic bunch, will be able to sympathise with my plight, I'm sure, and hold off with the pitch-forks for just a little while longer so that I can continue in my job of bringing you the most interesting and informative set of non-fiction articles to be found anywhere on TWC. If you leave this edition, or indeed any other, stroking your chin, and pondering on something that you didn't know before, then I will consider my mission to have been a success, for that is the primary purpose of the internet, is it not? The dissemination of knowledge? That's how it began, anyway, although perhaps it has moved on to the dissemination of pictures of cats instead.

    On the subject of knowledge, and its spread, this mission isn't just limited to The Helios, but you can find it all over TWC. Indeed, despite its shortcomings, and the fact that it receives enough stick to be able to build a small log cabin, the Discussion & Debate forums have actually helped me in my knowledge of world-affairs. Although everything unsourced requires a certain amount of salt taken with it, it has allowed me to keep abreast of developments in the world, and challenge my own ignorance on those events by making me do the research necessary to form an opinion. For a forum dedicated to a computer game series, I would say that's pretty good, wouldn't you?

    As you will see, there have been a couple of changes in the writing team: Major Darling has now left the building, much to our loss, but Incesticide has entered it, and I look forward to reading his future contributions. Incesticide actually contacted me out of the blue requesting to contribute. It always gives me great pleasure when I'm contacted in this manner, as there is a great deal of talent on TWC, which is all too often hidden from sight as they don't post very often, or they post in areas that I'm not familiar with, so it's great when people contact me to volunteer and I urge anyone who would like to, to please not be shy and get in touch.

    Finally, there will be some special editions of The Helios appearing in the fairly near future in order to spice things up and give the history buffs amongst you something to really get your teeth into, as we seem to have a lack of historical articles as of late, with Limskj and Lysimachus both occupied with greater things.

    Jom




    René Artois
    This article is very poignant at this moment in time, when Japan is still reeling, even a month later, from the enormous earthquake and subsequent tsunami that struck its eastern coastline, although René's article is about a tsunami that helped to shape Europe as we know it today, cutting off Britain from the continental mainland.

    Events that shaped Britain pt. 1: Ancient Megatsunami
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Those of you who read my previous article on an ancient natural disaster will know it’s a topic that interests me, particularly because of the impact it has had on the world as a whole. What I am going to write about today, however, had a much more limited impact than the Chicxulub meteor, and happened much more recently. This is not to say its impact was negligible, on the contrary, this event occurred due to a landslide which shifted an area roughly the size of Iceland, in other words: it was big. What’s more important to consider this time is that humans actually inhabited the earth, so arguably it had a bigger direct impact on the way people lived.

    What happened?

    Around 6100BC, three of the largest known landslides in history occurred, known as Storegga Slides, due to the fact that they occurred on the edge of Norway’s continental shelf, Storegga being Old Norse for ‘Great Edge’. These enormous events triggered, as you might expect, an enormous mega tsunami. This tsunami literally wiped swathes of land off the map. You see, this land, before inundation, was known as ‘Doggerland’, it was a great landmass, with coastal plains and tundra. Doggerland was regarded as one of the best areas available for humans with regard to hunting and fishing in the Mesolithic. This means it would have been well populated. Doggerland stretched over what is now the North Sea. It effectively joined the UK, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands together.

    Here’s what it looked like 10,000BC
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    As you can see, that’s quite a bit of land that disappeared, and when you consider its importance and a habitat and a food source, that’s a huge impact on the human population, those who survived anyway. It’s possible even, that the reduction of land and food created by this event resulted in the first land ownership claims, as population was still increasing, but land was decreasing, steadily as well, due to the melting of the glaciers as the world was coming out of an ice age. This coincides with the change from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic age, as hunting and a nomadic lifestyle were replaced by farming and the earliest settlements.

    It should be noted though, that the inundation of Doggerland was not solely due to this tsunami. Sea levels had been gradually rising beforehand, and continued to afterwards. This means we should see it as more of a catalyst than a sole cause.

    What’s the evidence?

    The main evidence for this comes in several forms:

    • Geology! The layer of sand in the Montrose Basin, Scotland, which is an anomaly, considering it is surrounded by clay sediment. The sand shows the tsunami because it is a deposit of marine sediment found inland. The thickness of it shows the huge amount of material deposited.
    • Here's some pictures of said sediment:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    • Plant material found within this sand has been carbon dated to 6100BC.


    • In 1931, the trawler, Colinda hauled in a piece of peat from the North Sea. This was discovered to contain a Mesolithic harpoon made out of antler. A tool used by hunters in the many lakes, rivers and marshes that would have been found on Doggerland, this discovery triggered the mass interest into Doggerland.

    • Hundreds of other Mesolithic artefacts have been discovered, like the axe below, as well as Palaeolithic, but no Neolithic, showing how human activity must have ceased after the Mesolithic.

    • Seismic surveys of the area mapped a 6,000km squared area of Doggerland, including the Shotton River, about the size of the Rhine.



    Banned
    More current affairs are discussed in this issue by Banned/Verbalcartoonist in this next article, which focuses on what may well be the beginnings of a new Middle East thanks to the revolutions which have taken place in Tunisia, Egypt, and that are ongoing in Libya.

    The Sleeping Giants

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The unification of five digits is all it takes to make a strong fist that can accomplish far more than what the lone fingers can achieve individually in these troubled times. This is exactly what the people of countries like Tunisia, Egypt and Libya began to realize after decades of forbearance and pain. The hatred became out of control and could not keep the masses apart while the rising needs for democracy and free speech were forcing the people to mount the barricades. Behind the incident is a well-recognized idea called revolution which keeps reminding us the value of peace and harmony. The Middle-Eastern Revolution, although non-reminiscent of developments like the industrial and information revolutions, has been the bringer of a new age for the countries and their people involved. It is the age of free will for those people who are guided by the beacon of hope that has kept their spirits alive under the most unfavorable circumstances. On the other hand, it is also a demanding revolution that has brought them forward to stand against the cruel use of power. The revolting truth of our times is that the insurrection demands blood. People die in order to make it happen. It is a disconcerting fact that cannot be ignored because humanity has seen the horrors of bloodshed. It is an inevitable occurrence that cannot be neglected because lives matter no matter what the situation. But it is a necessary conflict for those who fear the worse. Although the regime of Hosni Mubarak ended after 30 years owing to the success of the Jasmine Revolution in Egypt which comprised huge demonstrations, strikes, attacks on public buildings and even self-immolations for eighteen days, it left around 400 dead, a figure unrivalled by the death toll caused by any previous Egyptian revolution. But it is nothing compared to the number of people who died and suffered under Mubarak’s rule for such a long time, and not to mention the ensuing aftermath had the revolution been curbed by the government. But then again, every cake comes with a price tag and the pro-democratic Egyptians paid enough to get their own in the form of a government that is chosen by its people. Now they only hope that their fellow countrymen show the same zeal during the general elections scheduled to take place six months from now. The torchbearers of the Revolution of the Youth showed commendable fervor and fought bravely during the upheaval. If such individuals are not the ones who come forward when it’s time for restructuring the political system which aroused the sense of previously non-existent freedom, the revolution will be described as a partial failure by its future generations. The rest of the world can only hope that the people of Egypt soon usher in a new era characterized by liberty.

    Unlike the relatively easy transition that took place in both Egypt and Tunisia, the highly anticipated political renaissance does not seem to be in propinquity to the Libyan masses on tenterhooks. The fight is at peak and the Libyans are still perseveringly waiting for a miracle that helps them overthrow the world’s longest ruling autocrat Muammar Gaddafi. The ruthless and insensitive stance of the dictator has been the talk of the world. But the ruler who did not let a word slip now finds himself in a difficult position. The power of media is being felt for the first time by the despot who had completely seized freedom of speech for himself. But that did not prevent him from declaring on national television that the protestors represent terrorism and would not be shown mercy. Ironically, he will need mercy when everyone loyal to him defects to end his 41-year-old tyrannical rule. It’s also too late for personal lessons from Al Qaida which has itself been shunned and shocked by the movement in the Arab world. People believe that once his rule is over they will be able to utter words without fear while Libya loses its title of the most censored country in the Middle-East. Eastern Libya, which has become the hub for media outlets, is now out of Gaddafi’s reach despite help from foreign mercenaries. Though not everything around the Suez is under the control of the good forces, Al Qaeda receiving a setback is a major development considering the support that middle-eastern governments had been providing to the terrorists. Another big advantage is that many people have valued the importance of secularism by supporting the idea of a non-Islamic state, which is yet another stumbling block for the turban wearing barbaric black beards. The Muslim Brotherhood, however, might interrupt, but that is a different story. The main merit of the revolution lies in the fact that the need to rise against oppressors has been realized and the expectations held by people are being actualized by deeds. They now believe in the power of mob. Even if the movement takes an undesirable course, it will leave behind memories that will remind them of the strength of their people who stood for human rights. But let us not forget that victory is quite within reach for the Libyans in spite of the intransigence shown by Gaddafi and his followers. As long as patriots like Mehmed Mohammed Zeyo exist, the Libyans can overthrow him with much ease. The 49-year-old was the executer of an impossible feat of breaching the defenses of a Benghazi base alone by approaching with canisters of gunpowder and oil in his car’s trunk. The base has since then been used as the center of revolt. Clearly, there’s something about violence against your countrymen that inspires you to retaliate. Mehmed felt miserable about the status quo of his country and did what he considered right, saving many lives in the process.

    Once the first domino falls, the others follow suit one by one. What happened in Egypt, Libya and other countries in the region was a result of what happened in Tunisia. What happened in Tunisia was a result of what happened to Mohamed Bouazizi. Who would have thought that a street vendor with no political power was capable of shaking the entire Middle-East? Such is the potential of an individual who decides to fight in order to survive. The humiliation following the forceful confiscation of his goods was enough to destroy his inner will. Any citizen of Tunisia would have done what he did thereafter. The people understand as they always did why he immolated himself. However, it is a sad reality that they would not stand together for a common cause unless a hero arose and set himself on fire. Mohamed, who acted as the catalyst of the highest number of rebellions in human history, will forever be remembered as the revolutionary protagonist of the Middle-East. He provided an opportunity to the Arabs who made good use of it by protesting against tyranny. He is like Muhammad the Prophet himself who has descended for the Muslim World to uplift the victims of merciless repression.

    The flag of victory has been hoisted in Egypt and Tunisia. Libya is on its way to the finish line of the race. The leaders of other countries in the region have begun to fathom the gravity of the revolution. But all this came at a huge cost to the revolutionaries. While the rebellion in Egypt suffered a heavy loss of lives, it pales in comparison to the death toll that is likely to be above five thousand in Libya. The rebels there have not yet gained total control, which signals a worse end. Tunisia, where the resistance started, saw many citizens dying for the noble cause. In countries like Yemen and even Iraq, there were major demonstrations that resulted in a few deaths. But nevertheless nothing was in vain because all governments in the Middle-East are now resorting to different ways of pleasing the rebels. Presidents and dictators have been expunged in the past but this is the doing of a single revolution occurring in various countries. Many of them won’t run for another term out of fear and disapproval. Reforms are being introduced by kings and queens to gratify the ailing populations. The paths for free elections have been carved for the people who can finally choose their own representatives. Printing press is going to be established on a national level as a medium of free speech. Cruel laws are going to be erased and there will be peace, order and stability. People will learn to deal with problems like poverty, inflation and unemployment and raise awareness. The idea called revolution will emerge as successful and commence an age of freedom for the Arabs. This will truly be the Fourth Age of Middle East.


    Jom
    This edition I've examined the idea of the "Green Economy", and whether it's really an apt name for a concept that may be new, but is growing at a very fast pace.

    The Green Economy
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    During a time of economic crisis, whether we are able to reconcile the needs of the environment with budgetary needs is an extremely pertinent question, because climate change waits for no man, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions need to be effected no matter what the economic climate. This question has certainly been on the mind of European Union policy-makers, who in the past year set goals for the entire of the EU to produce 20% of its electricity via renewable means by 2020. I have no idea whether this is actually feasible, but I am going to assume that it is, as the EU has devoted extensive resources into researching the effects on industry for such a change, and the findings are quite encouraging.

    Like any other sector, renewable energy requires two things for growth: manpower and investment, but it is also able to give significant returns. Apart from the crucial factor of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, research and development in green energy creates jobs and therefore stimulates the economy. In France in 2010 alone, the emission of 6 mega tonnes of CO2 was avoided, and 15,000 jobs were created by the burgeoning biofuel industry that's developing there, and the EU estimates that if each country were to meet this target, they would see the creation of approximately 400,000 extra jobs, and a rise of GDP by around 0.25%, increasing to 0.44% by 2030 if legislation and initiatives were to stay in place. At a time when unemployment figures are at their all-time highs, these figures inevitably lead to a certain amount of optimism, on my part at least, as they mean tackling the two greatest threats facing the world at the moment: global financial meltdown, and climate change. Certainly, when these employment figures are put into context, they seem to be a cause for optimism: budget cuts in the UK will entail the loss of 490,000 jobs in the public sector; where investment in green energy will cover the majority of that number, with no reason why the UK could not try and go beyond the 20% target and aim for 25%, or 30%.

    We must remember that these figures are only for the EU, and whilst the EU makes up the world's largest economy, clearly those who are not far behind: the USA, China, Japan, India, all have to play their part, as climate change is a global problem, which is why President Obama announced the investment of $8 billion in renewable energy research, and the scrapping of subsidies for non-renewable energy. That Great Britain also announced Ł73 billion of investment in the next decade is also highly significant, because the two governments advocate very different strategies for combating the financial crisis: Obama takes a Keynesian approach, with heavy government investment and spending to try and kick-start the economy, whereas the approach favoured by the Coalition in the UK is that of austerity, and deep spending cuts to try and reduce the public deficit. So whilst these two nations are divided over the financial crisis, they are united over climate change, as indeed the whole world should be. Getting developing nations on-board will still be a struggle, however, as fossil fuels remain more efficient and easier to access: developed nations have a significant advantage in this respect, and many feel it is unjust to force greenhouse-gas reduction measures upon them when their economies may not be able to take the strain.

    This research may also help to take the strain off members of the public as well, who are being hit hard by skyrocketing fuel prices, not just in terms of petrol, but gas for heating homes as well has seen a sharp increase in price, leading to higher numbers in fuel poverty than ever before, which will perhaps finally bring the message home to the public that renewables are the way of the future, and to resist that is foolish at best, dangerous at worse. It will, however, still be a bitter fuel to swallow, as less reliance on petrol and diesel will mean less money coming into the government in the form of taxation on these fuels. There is also a possible link between biofuel and deforestation, although research by the American Society for Photogammetry and Remote Sensing suggests that this link is a very tenuous one, although it warns against what could become a problem if more and more biofuel is required for the complete removal of petrol-driven cars from our roads.


    rez
    This edition, rez examines the phenomenon of the game trailer, making a strong argument for their recognition as works of great skill and quality in creation. I share his enthusiasm for some trailers, particularly those of Bioware, whom I hold in very high esteem for their excellent 5-minute long trailers for The Old Republic, and Dragon Age 2, both of which show incredibly high production values, but I'll let rez explain that in more depth.

    Videogame Trailers
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    In recent years I have grown more and more fond of the trailers created to showcase new videogames. In my last issue I touched on a comparison of games to cinema and attempted to champion their cause as a legitimate artform. To my mind the best way to show how far games have managed to force their way into the company of respected creative artfroms is to examine the trailers created to promote their sale. Obviously the ideal strategy would be to chain your nay-sayer to a sofa, hook him, or more likely her, up to an IV filled with liquidised pizza, Mountain Dew and cocaine then force them to play through the entirity of Mass Effect 1 and 2. But apparently this isn't the best way to show the new girlfriend your artistic side...

    Most game trailers these days are constructed along the same lines as modern cinema so people who might doubt the artistic merit of games as a media medium are usually consoled by familiarity in this regard. A prime example of hard hitting, fast paced and clearly cinema based trailers are those put forward by Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto. The games themselves are heavily influenced by cinematic Americana so its no suprise to see their older as well as more recent trailers taking on the appearance of something you might see at a movie theater rather than your laptop. But there's more to it than just flashing explosions and getting that super special heroic soundbite.

    Videogame companies have something of an uphill struggle on their hands if they want to project an image of artistic pride. They must first consider the pre-existing stigma against a serious appreciation of their work as an interactive story and mimic more accepted artforms accordingly. But a smart company like Valve always remembers that the duty of a videogame trailer is first and foremost to advertise the videogame experience. This means showing off gameplay, either through directly showing us the game's engine at work and in play or by cinematically showcasing the sorts of things that the player will be doing in game. In my opinion (I can't bring myself to say humble) the trailer that doubled as the opening movie for Left 4 Dead 1 was something of a pinnacle of creativity in this regard. This trailer not only manages to tell an exciting short story and relate the charisma of its characters very quickly but it actively demonstrates every facet of the core gameplay. From helping up fallen comrades to shooting car alarms to distracting the tank pretty much everything is explained to you in a manner that also doubles as a hell of a short movie. The one thing they, understandably, missed out was a showcase of the boomer who may well have killed the atmosphere a little with his somewhat comedic vomit attacks. Left 4 Dead 2 followed the example of demonstrative promotion but opted instead for a more theater styled trailer showing flashes of action rather than a continuous story. Left 4 Dead is a cinematically themed game so this level of dramatic attention is not surprising but the quality and creative talent that went into their opening movies and trailers is cause for applause.

    A company I would be remiss to mention in an article on trailers and promotion is Bungie. Bungie are easily my favourite crew for putting together a videogame advertising campaign. Interestingly enough they don't follow the trend in strenuously imitating cinematic trailers and instead seem to have championed a style that evokes cinematic quality but remains devoted to expressing the gaming potential of their product through short films. My favourite of Bungie's creations was the Halo 3 diorama trailer. At once we can all recognise the talent and dedication that went into actually producing the diorama itself but Bungie went further with a slowly shot build up to the centerpiece of the battle culminating in the genius slogan - 'Believe.' The entire trailer being accompanied by Frederick Chopin's Raindrop Prelude No. 15 not in its original incarnation but intentionally slowed down to effect a more morose lamentation for the destruction on display. I still re-watch this piece every now and again purely to take in the combination of the visual spectacle and masterfully chosen soundtrack. What is even more impressive about this work is how they didn't let the diorama go to waste after the tv spot was done. The 'Believe' campaign included a variety of extra trailers focusing on veterans of the Covenant war, often being interviewed at war memorials or a museum that contained this diorama. But most spectacular of all was the 'Making Of' video for the diorama which was shot entirely in the character of the Halo universe. Clearly the makers of such an epic piece of miniature artwork wanted their process to be recorded but the guys at Bungie took this as a wonderful oppurtunity to evoke yet more emotion with their superb trailer campaign. Unfortunately the grand battle scene portrayed in the diorama never turned up in the game itself and after suffering the long wait for Halo 3 through all those amazing trailers I had really been hoping to see that moving depiction brought to life in-game. Alas it was not meant to be and the greatness of the trailer campaign was diminished as a result.

    Now no article on game trailers could hope to do itself justice these days without mentioning the recent masterpiece brought to us by the makers of Dead Island, Techland. I'm not going to bother expounding on the emotive nature of the video's content or the beautifully constructed chronology as well as its fluid animation. What I care about is the power of a good trailer. How many of us had even heard of Dead Island before this trailer was released? It was originally scheduled to come out in 2008 but the first time I'd even seen the name come up was in a reccomendation to watch the trailer. How many of us have had conversations about the actual game? What the trailer shows is pretty generic zombie action. There are a lot of people getting cut up over the extensive imagery of this young girl's death but apart from axing a couple of zombies, hinting at the melee focus of the game, we get pretty much nothing to tell us what this game's driving mechanics are. We are led to assume that since the trailer was so emotive that the game's characters and stories will be just as engaging but first off, Techland didn't make the trailer. Secondly, no character dialogue, history or motivation is revealed in the trailer. According to the Wiki article it doesn't even seem as though the family portrayed will even appear in the game as playable characters. But even without telling us anything special about the game or introducing us to the players of the story this trailer has ignited massive interest in an otherwiise ignored project and practically guranteed it huge sales. That is what a trailer can do.

    With my earlier criteria in mind the Dead Island short movie is beyond reproach but the Dead Island trailer isn't actually very good at all. It used to be that World of Warcraft or other RPG's like The Old Republic dominated this style of, technically frustrating, but visually amazing trailers. But after Dead Island's astronomical success I fear we might be seeing a great deal more short movies that don't really tell us anything. This isn't to put down the short movie format for game trailers. I already mentioned the opening to Left 4 Dead as a wonderous achievement but I'll come back to Bungie to end on a truly high note.

    Bungie's Reach short movie trailer is truly phenomenal. One can't begin without extending special mention to Martin O'Donnell, the long standing master composer for the Halo games. His soundtracks have been astounding over the years but I have to say he really out did himself with 'Deliver Hope' and 'Lone Wolf'. In this trailer the soundtrack perfectly compliments the build up of action as our Spartan nears her target with the other back-up characters being introduced with tasteful subtlety along the way. Halo is a combat shooter so gameplay is quite obviously on display throughout the film but the evocative music actually ties in with the introduction of characters the player is genuinely going to interact with so the trailer actively has purpose in creating such emotion. lastly, whilst chronologically the trailer doesn't make much sense (if the jetpack Spartan is the No. 6 you replace) Bungie appear to have learned the lesson of the Diorama and actually included a mission in which you transport a bomb onto a Covenant ship. Now it doesn't bear much resemblence to the action of the trailer but the broad themes are the same and broad themes are exactly what a trailer should be dealing in.


    Lord Rahl
    Here's the next piece of Lord Rahl's colossal essay comparing the two franchises, and don't worry: there's still plenty more where this came from.

    Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part IV
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The Starships

    Explaining the starships of both franchises is such a big issue that I've split it up into more specific topics.

    General Design and Purpose

    Too often in a Star Wars vs Star Trek debate people will put one ship against another. This is a simple way of deciding the outcome of the debate but it is hardly a proper way to steer the debate. The purpose and design of the countless starships seen in Star Wars and Star Trek are very different and I think that desperately needs to be taken into consideration.

    Let's discuss Star Wars ships first. There seem to be two types of ships that dominate the SW universe: carriers and fighters. The carriers, like the Star Destroyer and Trade Federation Battleship, are truly massive ships, each being over a kilometer in length (or in the case of the Battleship, diameter), carrying thousands of personnel and hundreds of fighters. These can barely be called carriers, however, since they have huge armaments with dozens and dozens of laser cannons. The immensity of the capital ships in SW is evident with the Executor-Class Super Star Destroyer (over 17km long!) that mirrors the epic scale of the franchise and what George Lucas imagined. Basically every single starship seen in Star Wars movies is a military ship (except for the few diplomatic ships and transports). They're meant for one thing: to kick ass. This makes sense since the movies focus on the wars. Fighters are also shown a lot. We all know what TIE Fighters and X-Wings look like and most of the main characters get in a fighter at least once. We also see smaller ships like the Corellian corvette (in Ep. IV) and the iconic Millennium Falcon but the heavily armed carriers and fighters are the focus in the movies.


    Yeah, yeah, yeah. We get it, George. It's ing big!

    In the ST universe 99% of the ships are less than a kilometer in length. Take, for example, the USS Enterprise-D, that is one of the bigger starships (outside of Borg vessels) and is 642 meters in length. So it is about 40% of the Star Destroyer's length. I'll use this as an example of the relative size difference of SW ships versus ST ships (and if you're more interested in the size comparisons then check out this handy visual aid). It's not surprising that ST ships are much smaller on average than SW ships. While size is a huge difference, so is the purpose of the ships. In the ST universe there is not a huge galaxy-wide war (for the most part). The various alien races have many different types of ships that they use like cargo freighters, science vessels, etc. I know SW has them too but they're definitely not a common occurrence and are not seen nearly as much as in ST. Most Federation starships are meant for deep-space exploration rather than combat, although they do have significant weaponry available. I'm making a generalization here but the conclusion I've come to to is that SW = warfare and ST = exploration. Rarely do we see fighters in ST. But let's take note that ST ships do have firepower. Most every ship is equipped with either a disruptor or phaser weapons system and a type of torpedo weapon. I guess ST ships could be considered to be like frigates, destroyers, cruisers, or battleships (in some ways). They are large ships with multiple weapons and defense systems, and are all similar in design and purpose yet have varying sizes depending on class.


    A Federation fleet in formation.

    There are three conclusions I've come to here and I hope you agree with: 1) SW ships are substantially larger in general than ST ships. 2) SW ships are mostly (heavily armed) carriers or fighters while ST ships are like destroyers/battleships (in some ways). 3) SW ships (at least those that are focused on) are purely military in use while ST ships are more for exploration. That's a general overview of SW and ST ships as well as going over their design and purpose.

    But wait!!! There is one glaring subject I wish to give notice, and that is of the seemingly idiotic design of Star Destroyers, and more specifically their shield domes/towers. I mean seriously, why would you put the things that are one of the most important parts of your ship on the outside of the hull in big towers for all to see? Those huge white balls are just asking to get shot up! If I was an enemy commander I'd see those shield domes and think of the Star Destroyers like an dumb guy bent over with his balls waiting for me to hit with my foot with a hard kick. In Ep. VI we see fighters take out a dome and thus take down the bridge deflector shields of the Super Star Destroyer. All it took to take it down was a single A-Wing hitting the bridge. Hey Star Destroyer designers, how about putting the shield domes, or whatever makes the shields, inside the hull so they aren't such vulnerable and obvious targets?

    Weapons and Defenses

    I touched on the weapons and defenses of SW and ST ships a bit above, but since this debate requires discussion of a supposed conflict between the two universes, more attention is needed. I have a very good understanding of ST weapons and defenses and an adequate understanding of the same with SW so hopefully I do this well. This is where making educated comparisons becomes more difficult.

    SW ships primarily use lasers as their weapon of choice. The capital ships have dozens, if not thousands, of turbolasers at their disposal. It seems that the larger the laser weapon the bigger the target it is supposed to be fired at, like a battleship's main guns are for ship-to-ship combat while the machine guns are for taking out fighters. The large guns are used to bombard other capital ships while the smaller guns are for fighters. Other known weapons are ion cannons and proton torpedoes. I do not know for certain the power of these weapons, although Darth Wong does post some staggering numbers for their power on his site. If these numbers are to be considered entirely accurate and to be compared with his ST numbers without hesitation then it is clear SW wins hands down...yet as I've explained making such black and white comparisons does not make much sense. I'll explain further on that and more later.

    The laser weapons seemed to be human-controlled for the most part. The only example I know of where a computer was used was in A New Hope when the Rebel pilots used the computer to target the Death Star's exhaust port (and failed). It seems the Force is better at aiming than a computer! The torpedoes (or missile weapons) I've seen have always been controlled by a computer (as far as targeting), except for the case just explained. So, with SW weapons we have both directed energy weapons (turbolasers) and missile weapons (torpedoes). Firing arcs of most laser turrets in the SW films seem to be pretty limited but it's made up for with the sheer number of turrets. What are the ranges of SW weapons? It seems that, other than the Death Star's main weapon, every single shot fired in the movies was always done within close (relative) visual range. In Ep. III the capital ships are firing devastating barrages of their huge turbolasers at extremely close range. Example: Battle of Coruscant. Most of the shots fired don't seem to be further than a few ship's lengths apart (~2,500 m) at most. I do understand, however, that this was done for cinematic purposes rather than showing what space combat in the SW universe may truly be like. I will touch on this point later. I would also like to point out that the turbolaser turrets on the SW capital ships seem to be very limited in their ability to move. This makes sense since the main targets for the capital ships are other barely maneuverable capital ships. There is no real need to have their gun turrets be able to move around quickly. That's what the smaller, less powerful, anti-fighter turrets are for. The same goes for fighter-to-fighter combat. The fighters never seem to be more than ten lengths apart.

    SW starship defenses are (deflector) shields. They seem to be (nearly) invisible. In Ep. III you can see laser hits on what looks to be shields instead of hull. I believe the shields also "hug" against the hull of ships because we never see a shield bubble like in ST. Unlike ST, it is difficult to judge how strong the shields are because we rarely hear of the shields being depleted gradually. It always seems as if the shields are either up and holding or down. As far as armor is concerned for the hull, I don't have any clue. I read the X-Wing has titanium armor though.


    Quad turbolaser turrets and a Star Destroyers' destroyed shield tower and burning command tower.

    Fortunately for ST there is much more source material to understand the weapon and defense systems on starships in the universe. Like SW, ST's main weapons used are directed energy weapons like disruptors and phasers. It is interesting to note that in the ST universe lasers are an old and obsolete weapon. The Enterprise-D in one episode is fired upon with lasers and the crew finds humor in the situation even though the other ship had just fired on them. Anyway, these weapons can fire in either pulse or beam settings and to varying power levels. ST directed energy weapons can target by either a computer or be manned. The vast majority of shots taken are very accurate. In space battles individual areas of an enemy vessel will be targeted such as engines, weapon systems, etc. Directed energy weapons are often fired along with missile-like weapons such as photon torpedoes (not to be confused with SW's proton torpedoes). Torpedoes are very accurate as well and follow their targets. Firing arcs of the DEWs are generally more than 90 degrees (and on many Federation ships it comes close to 180 degrees) but multiple weapons arrays are on each ship, usually having any starship with firing arcs covering the entire ship. Torpedo firing arcs have less coverage but there are usually two torpedo launchers, one bow and one stern, meaning the ship can fire in both directions. The majority of starships can fire in all six (bow, stern, port, starboard, ventral, and dorsal) directions. As far as range, I know ST ships can fire over 10 km but most every episode we see starships much closer than that, perhaps at around 2 km away from each other. This, just like I explained with SW, is due more to keeping the action in the camera shot than anything else. Also, since ST is mostly TV episodes the budget didn't allow for elaborate space battles.

    Defensive systems in ST come in three categories: shields, armor (hull plating), and cloaking technology (although this could be considered offensive too). Unlike SW where shield generators are placed in overly exposed and vulnerable positions, in ST (deflector [isn't it odd how both franchises have very similar or identical names for technologies?]) shield generators are almost always located inside of the starship. Neither matter nor energy can pass through the shields. While shields are up they also prevent enemy boarding. If the enemy does board the ship, however, it is possible to put up shields inside to trap them. Starship hull armor is made up of many different made up metals, and is undoubtedly stronger than titanium (as they can withstand explosions of multiple megatons and maintain integrity). There is not much to expand on there. As for cloaking technology, that is something absent from SW canon but very prevalent in ST canon. Even if you know what to look for when an enemy is cloaked it is still difficult to find them. In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country a Klingon Bird-of-Prey could fire while cloaked and in Star Trek: Nemesis the Scimitar had a virtual perfect cloak. This technology would be very useful if say...you needed to shoot some explosive torpedoes down an exhaust port. Here is a good video of ST weapons in action (although it seems like every ship except the Defiant has its shields offline! )


    A Cardassian Galor-class firing two of its phaser banks simultaneously and the Enterprise-D's phaser beam impacting a Klingon BoP's shields.

    So, where does the advantage lie regarding weapons and defenses? If we're talking sheer numbers then SW wins. Since their starships are much larger than those of ST they have much more weaponry. Whereas the Enterprise-E may have eight weapons arrays, a Star Destroyer will have dozens. The number of guns doesn't necessarily mean the advantage is with the numbers, however. Using what we can see on TV and in the theater from both of the franchises, there is no obvious advantage in the power of the weapons. Even Han Solo's minuscule Millennium Falcon was able to withstand multiple hits from Star Destroyer turbolasers (I'm assuming they were turbolasers) and the Rebel X-Wings involved in the Battle of Yavin were able to withstand many turbolaser bursts from the Death Star(!!!). Lasers seem to be the dominant weapon system in the SW universe while the only ships that use torpedoes or missile-type weapons are fighters. ST uses both DEWs and missile-type weapons almost equally.

    While ST ships do not have the sheer number of weapon systems that SW ships do, does that equate to SW weapons being overwhelmingly superior as well? I don't think so. As I said, there is nothing I've seen that supports that. If one takes Darth Wong's calculations of weapon power from both franchises correctly, that means everything in SW is severely overpowered compared to ST. But that really makes no sense. How could Bobba Fett's Slave I be more powerful than the Enterprise-D? The Enterprise is much larger and seems far more capable. In Ep. III Anakin fires lasers at Obi Wan's fighter (that aren't overly smaller than Slave I and indeed we see another of Obi Wan's fighters get shot at by the Slave I in Ep. II) to shoot off the buzz droids and the fighter survives a couple or a few laser bursts. If SW ships are so insanely overpowered, why didn't Obi Wan's fighter simply disintegrate? This is why I take "official" SW technical information with a grain of salt. This is where common sense trumps fantasy "facts". I am sort of split on this argument. SW wins in numbers, which is expected, but I think ST wins when it comes to other points like targeting and use of weapons. In SW there seems to be no real purpose of shooting other than to...shoot. In ST there is actually strategy to it, but I'll expand on strategy and tactics later.

    And then there is defense. This is even more difficult to judge than weapons since shields or armor in SW is more often referenced in passing rather than us getting to see how it all works and understand it better. On one hand I know ST ships have shields that can withstand a lot of damage (if the combating ships are comparable in strength) and the ships can orientate themselves to have a different section of shields facing the enemy so that the weakened area of shields can gain its strength back (more on that later as well). In countless ST scenes we watch as the shields are weakened so we get an understanding of how much they can take and what they mean for the ship(s). The same goes for the hull. ST often references hull plating and hull integrity. But in SW there's barely any mention of hull armor and it seems as if either the deflector shields are up or down. We have no scenes to gauge the relative strength of the hull or shields and it seems that once shields are down the ship is screwed. I can assume SW ships have better armor and shields simply because they're bigger but that is not a well-founded assumption, and is it one that makes sense to attribute to other unknowns of SW? I think not.

    Again, I don't wish to knock SW for not having enough emphasis on the technicalities of its ships, weapons, etc., but if we're arguing SW vs ST it difficult to give the advantage towards SW if there is so little to base arguments on and the official publications remain equally as unfounded. Here is a website that deals a lot with SW vs ST but is an obvious pro-ST site whereas Darth Wong's is obviously pro-SW.


    Major Darling
    Unfortunately this looks to be the last piece that Major Darling will write for us at The Helios, as he has sadly left the team of writers, but I want to extend my thanks, and the thanks of the rest of the team for his hard work in producing some excellent articles for the community here at TWC to read. His subject here is one which will be familiar to those who have followed his column: that of the British governmental system.

    How representative is Parliament?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Parliament is a representative institution. Its aim is to represent the different views and diverse communities that exist throughout the UK, therefore Parliament can be analysed to truly see how representative it is. In matters of Race, religious background, social background and other characteristics. Parliament is defined by the two Houses of Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

    In the history of British Governments, since the creation of Parliament, there has never been a non-white male First Lord of the Treasury, or Prime Minister, with one exception. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister from 1979-1990 was the first and so far only to break this rule. Thatcher was also one of only 19 female MPs in 1979, this number has slowly grown since then and in 1987, it had moved to 41 female MPs in the House of Commons. This then grew again, peaking in 2005 with 128, then gradually declining in 2010 with 125, 98 of these are Labour MPs, 17 Conservative, 10 Liberal Democrats and 3 others, this shows that the Labour Party is the most socially diverse in terms of gender. Although this is now a significant percentage of the House (20%) it is no way near, the percentage of women in the UK which numbers just over half of the country. It could be argued, that although women have become more commonplace in Parliament, they still do not accurately represent the female electorate of Great Britain

    In the House of Lords, gender diversity is almost exactly the same as that of the House of Commons. There are 148 female peers in the House of Lords, which is more or less equal in percentage (20%) to that of the 125 female MPs in the House of Commons. An increasing number of women peers have been appointed and as a result the social makeup of the reformed House of Lords is now, in some respects, more broadly representative of the wider public than the House of Commons.

    When looking at the ethnic diversity of Parliament, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain the exact diversity of the Houses. The reason is that ethnic background is self-declared and is not an obligatory piece of information required, this is especially prevalent historically. The first confirmed non-white MPs since the Second World War were elected in the General Election of 1987. These first minorities ethnic MPs were from the Labour Party 1. Since 1987, the amount of non-white MPs has increased in the Labour party, reaching 13 at the 2005 election. 2 There has always been since 1997, only a few non-White Conservative MPs, with 1 in 1992, then none in the subsequent Parliaments but in 2005, 2 were elected. There has never been a Liberal Democrat non-white MP elected at a general election, however Parmjit Singh Gill was elected at a 2004 by-election but did not retain his seat in the 2005 General election. It is obvious that the Labour party is the most ethnically diverse of the parties in the House of Commons. 3

    In the House of Lords, ethnic diversity is much higher. There are 40 Non-white Peers, this represents 5.4% of the House of Lords, compared to the 15 Non-White MPs which represents 2.3% of the House of Commons. The amount of Non-White Peers has risen by a large amount since 1997 and includes the creation of the first Muslim Peer, Lord Akhmed and the first Muslim woman peer, Baroness Warsi. We also saw the creation of the first political non-white Peer, Lord Taylor of Warwick. Overall, both Houses, as with gender, do not come near the actual non-white ethnic makeup of Britain, which is, according to the 2001 Census, at 9%.

    One-third of MPs in the House of Commons went to fee-paying schools. This is the lowest it has been since 1979, with 18 Labour MPs having gone to "non-maintained schools", 60 Conservatives and 39 Liberal Democrats 4. It is clear the Labour Party is again the most socially representative of the three main parties in terms of educational background. This is at odds with the 8% of British pupils who attend non-maintained schools 5, it could be said that this prevents Parliament from properly representing the British public and empathising with the lives of most of their electorate. Since 1979, the amount of MPs who have attended university has slowly increased with around 80 university alumni in both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat Party and 64 in the Labour Party after the 2005 election. When however, these numbers of graduates from University are examined more closely, it shows that 43 of the 81 Conservative university alumni MPs attended Oxford or Cambridge, 31 of 79 in the Lib-Dems and 16 of 64 in the Labour party. When compared to the Country, there is a very large disparity between the amount of the electorate who have graduated from one of the Oxbridge Universities and the amount of MPs who have, after the 2005 General Election. The main change in terms of the MP’s educational background is the clear rise of university graduates, as has happened in the public also, and also when compared to 1979, numbers of Oxbridge Graduate MPs has actually fallen (36-27%).

    The Lords were almost twice as likely as their Commons counterparts to have been to independent school (62/32%), and the fee-paying school attendance was more pronounced on the Conservative than the Labour benches in the House of Lords (79/34%). Nearly 100% of the remaining Hereditary peers in the House of Lords went to a fee-paying school 6, it could be argued that the House of Lords reform, made Parliament overall much more representative of those who went to state school which is 92% of the British Population. Lords in terms of universities are just as likely to be graduates as MPs, but on the other hand, a larger proportion of these graduates attended one of the Oxbridge Universities. Even when looking at the Lords Spiritual, only 6 of the 26 appointed Lords attended a State school.

    Although age does not reflect on how representative Parliament is general, it is important in a world when the younger generations are becoming more vocal and involved in politics. It could be said that a national assembly that does not represent all age groups, does not represent the country as a whole. Since 1979 however, the average age of an MP has remained remarkably consistent, never since 1979 has it gone below 48.5 years old and has not gone above 51.2 years old. It can be ascertained that due to no change in the average age, the youth of Britain is not being properly represented in Parliament. Since 1997, there has not been more than 10 MPs aged between 18 and 29 even though the percentage of young people in Britain is rising. At the 2005 General Election, Labour MPs were on average older with 90% of them being over 40. The Conservatives had around 83% over 40 and the Lib-Dems 69%, therefore in the area of age, the Liberal Democrats are the most representative. 7

    When looking at how representative Parliament is, one could take into account the MP’s occupations. Since 1979, the occupations of MPs have changed significantly over time. Those with professional background (Barrister, Doctor, Teacher etc) have declined from 45% in 1979 to around 40% in 2005. The House of Commons which used to feature large amounts of Barristers, now has less than half the amount in 1979. However, the representation of former teachers has risen by around 5%. As the number of MPs with professional backgrounds has declined, they have been replaced by those with business and “miscellaneous” occupations (white collar, farmer etc). 8 The Labour party is the most represented party in the professional sector, as well as the miscellaneous and manual work sectors. Once more, the Labour Party could be seen as the most representative in terms of MP’s former occupations and the percentage of the public with those occupations.

    In conclusion, I believe that it could be said that Parliament is not totally representative. Although numbers of women and non-white MPs and peers is increasing, it is estimated that it will take another 50 years for Parliament to show the real cultural diversity of Britain. Political parties must play a key part in this by selecting candidates of younger ages, diverse backgrounds and fewer from independent school and Oxbridge backgrounds also to fully represent Britain.

    1 Dod on Disk, Butler and Kavanagh: The British General Election of 1997
    2 Operation Black Vote
    3 House of Commons Library Research Paper 05/33
    4 House of Commons Library, Research Paper 10/33
    5 2003-4 figure, DFES Education and Training Statistics for the UK 2004
    6 Sutton Trust, 2005 Education background of Parliament Report
    7 Nuffield Election Studies 2005 General Election
    8 Butler et al The British General Election of 2005 and Earlier Editions


    Incesticide
    Incesticide's debut article for The Helios looks at the fascinating subject matter of whales, specifically those of the grey variety, and the question of how they navigate.

    How do Grey Whales Navigate?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The coastal underwater environment is a complex habitat with high levels of noise, both natural and anthropogenic, turbid waters, and many underwater geographic features; however, marine mammals successfully navigate and locate food. Some do so without the use of active biosonar and the use of vision is also limited. It is clear, therefore, that these animals must rely heavily on ambient noise cues for orientation and object detection.

    Eastern Pacific Grey Whales (Eschrichtius robustus) are medium-sized mysticetes, which have baleen plates to filter food rather than teeth. Adult males tend to be smaller than females but both sexes range between approximately 9 and 14 m in length. Males and females attain sexual maturity at an average age of 8 years. The gestation period is estimated to be between 13 and 14 months, and usually a single calf is born. Photographic records show that females tend to have a calf about every other year, although this most likely depends on food abundance. They are known as generalist and opportunistic feeders, preying on a number of species. Their main food sources are: mysid crustaceans, porcelain crab larvae, benthic amphipods, and benthic ghost shrimp. Each prey has its own respective habitat, ranging from protected sandy or muddy bottom bays to exposed rocky shores and open water.

    Grey Whales thrive in shallow water environments where visibility is reduced but apparently, do not actively echolocate, being famous for their silent nature. Along their migration route, which spans from their breeding grounds in Baja California to the Barents Sea in the Arctic, and in their feeding grounds, these whales are exposed to high levels of ambient noise, highly turbid waters and many underwater obstacles. There have been many suggestions as to how cetaceans find their way along migratory routes, using landmarks and topography, celestial and solar cues, magnetic fields, ambient noise, and ocean currents. It is most likely that out of these, the use of the auditory sense by the whales is the most important, as their environment is acoustically very rich. That said, gray whales do use their other senses, sight for instance, can be used to spot known landmarks when close to the shore.

    For a whale to be able to use sounds to both navigate and feed, one would expect that as it swims, a Grey Whale should encounter a wide diversity of sounds, and that certain areas should have different sound spectra from other areas. In fact, this is what several studies did discover.

    The sounds encountered by a Grey Whale as it swims are distinct on a wide range of scales. As the whale moves along a coastline, it can recognise different areas based on changes in the surf noise from a distance, that is the sound of waves reaching the shoreline. The sound produced by the surf is itself influenced by variations in the sediment composition, slope of the shores, and exposure of the bay to waves. Grey Whales can therefore, use surf noise (and in some areas, anthropogenic noise) as an orientational guide both during their migration, as well as when looking for food since it can identify which bay would be most likely to contain its prey. For example, a whale traveling up the coast of California en-route to British Columbia would do well to keep any noise to its right.

    On a smaller scale, once a whale enters a bay, it needs to determine where, in that bay, it is. This can be done because noise levels generally decrease as one move further away from the shore and as one moves to deeper water. Sounds in the bay are also affected by the presence of kelp, a type of marine plant, and the presence of other animals that emit sound living within the kelp beds. Several of these animals form part of the diet of the Grey Whale, and therefore detecting the presence of a kelp bed tends to mean food for the whale.

    The amount of marine life found in kelp beds, as well as the movement of the kelp with tide and currents, and the surface noise generated from wave action all contribute to kelp beds acting as sound sources. In this manner, kelp acts as what is called an “acoustic bright spot”. Kelp beds can, however, also create “acoustic shadows”. If there is a significant source of sound located behind the kelp bed, such as surf noise, then the kelp will likely absorb this sound, and thus create an “acoustic shadow”.

    Due to the relationship between Grey Whales and coastal waters, these animals are highly susceptible to human disturbances. With poor understanding of the importance of the natural ambient soundscape to marine organisms, the increasing amount of anthropogenic noise in the oceans could have adverse effects.


    Once again, I thank my excellent team of writers for their continued hard work in making The Helios what it is, and your support as a receptive and interested readership.

    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; April 18, 2011 at 02:05 PM.

    "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
    Legio's Avatar EMPRESS OF ALL THINGS
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chlοëtopia
    Posts
    43,774

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    Another excellent issue. I've read the articles of rez and Banned: going to read the rest later.

  3. #3
    jimkatalanos's Avatar 浪人
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Nationless
    Posts
    14,483

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    Nice, good job everyone.
    Ερωτηθεὶς τι ποτ' αυτώ περιγέγονεν εκ φιλοσοφίας, έφη, «Το ανεπιτάκτως ποιείν ά τινες διά τον από των νόμων φόβον ποιούσιν.


    Under the professional guidance of TWC's Zone expert Garbarsardar
    Patron of Noble Savage, Dimitri_Harkov, MasterOfThessus, The Fuzz, aja5191, Furin, neoptolemos, AnthoniusII, Legio, agisilaos, Romanos IV, Taiji, Leo, Jom, Jarlaxe






    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it.


    The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts.


    If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.


    We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.


    οὕτως ἀταλαίπωρος τοῖς πολλοῖς ἡ ζήτησις τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἑτοῖμα μᾶλλον τρέπονται.


    Questions are not necessarily there to be answered, but possibly there to inspire thinking.


    Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri, - quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes.


    If mind is common to us, then also the reason, whereby we are reasoning beings, is common. If this be so, then also the reason which enjoins what is to be done or left undone is common. If this be so, law also is common; if this be so, we are citizens; if this be so, we are partakers in one constitution; if this be so, the Universe is a kind of commonwealth.


    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.


    There is no chaos in the world, only complexity.
    Knowledge of the complex is wisdom.
    From wisdom of the world comes wisdom of the self.
    Mastery of the self is mastery of the world. Loss of the self is the source of suffering.
    Suffering is a choice, and we can refuse it.
    It is in our power to create the world, or destroy it.


    Homo homini lupus est. Homo sacra res homini.


    When deeds speak, words are nothing.


    Human history is a litany of blood, shed over different ideals of rulership and afterlife


    Sol lucet omnibus.


    You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.


    Neither should a ship rely on one small anchor, nor should life rest on a single hope.


    The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.


    Ο Νούς νοεί τον εαυτόν του ως κράτιστος και η νόησή του είναι της νοήσεως νόησις.


    'Nothing is true, everything is permitted.' is merely an observation of the nature of reality. To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic.

  4. #4
    Choki's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Argentine
    Posts
    2,231

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    Really nice job!!! Thanks!

  5. #5
    Over the hills...
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,204

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    Awesome, I particulary enjoyed reading rez's article on video game trailer

  6. #6
    Genius of the Restoration's Avatar You beaut and magical
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    6,174

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    Very nice job all

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

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    Nice one Jom.
    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 58 - Plus ultra

    Quote Originally Posted by René Artois View Post
    Nice one Jom.
    Well, I couldn't do it without you, my other writers, and the community's support.

    "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

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    All excellent

  10. #10
    René Artois's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    18,851

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    Major are you back on the team?
    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.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    Freelancing

  12. #12
    Libertus
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    pomona ca
    Posts
    73

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    whats helios for? which game

  13. #13
    Over the hills...
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,204

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    whats helios for? which game
    The helios is one of the TWC publications. It isnt about a game but rather science, history and many other things. If you want to read about the latest TW games and mods I suggest you read the Eagle Standard or have a look at the TWC Wiki

  14. #14
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    Quote Originally Posted by killeranthony View Post
    whats helios for? which game
    It's for the greatest game of all, killeranthony... reality!

    "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."

  15. #15

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    What is outside my room, Jom? Im scared


  16. #16
    René Artois's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    18,851

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    Incesticide likes to write about Cod.
    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.

  17. #17
    Incesticide's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Southampton, UK (Originally from Malta)
    Posts
    393

    Default Re: Helios 58 - Plus ultra

    Quote Originally Posted by René Artois View Post
    Incesticide likes to write about Cod.
    A fine-tasting fish, sir!

    Would you rather monk fish, halibut, flounder, sole, salmon, hake, trout? A bit of mackarel perhaps?
    Please note that I will be off to British Columbia for research purposes between the 14th July and 12th September - as such, I will not be able to log on.

    Incesticide's Music Review Thread

Posting Permissions

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