Dalek in-universe history has seen many retroactive changes, which have caused continuity problems. When the Daleks first appeared in ”The Daleks”, they were presented as the descendants of the Dals, mutated after a brief nuclear war between the Dal and Thal races. In 1975, Terry Nation revised the Daleks’ origins in ”Genesis of the Daleks”, where the Dals were now called Kaleds (of which “Daleks” is an anagram), and the Dalek design was attributed to one man, the crippled Kaled chief scientist and evil genius, Davros. Instead of a short nuclear exchange, the Kaled-Thal war was portrayed as a thousand-year-long war of attrition, fought with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons causing widespread mutations among the Kaled race. Davros experimented on living Kaled cells to find the ultimate mutated form of the Kaled species and placed the subjects in tank-like “travel machines” whose design was based on his own life-support chair.

”Genesis of the Daleks” marked a new era for the depiction of the species, with most of their previous history either forgotten or barely referred to again. Future stories in the original ”Doctor Who” series, which followed a rough story arc, would also focus more on Davros, much to the dissatisfaction of some fans who felt that the Daleks should take centre stage rather than merely becoming minions of their creator. Davros made his last televised appearance for 20 years in ”Remembrance of the Daleks”, which depicted a civil war between two factions of Daleks. One, the &

A single Dalek appeared in “Dalek”, written by Robert Shearman, which was broadcast on BBC One on 30 April 2005. This Dalek appeared to be the sole Dalek survivor of the Time War which had destroyed both the Daleks and the Time Lords. A Dalek Emperor returned at the end of the 2005 series, having rebuilt the Dalek race with genetic material harvested with human subjects. It saw itself as a god, and the new Daleks were shown worshipping it. These Daleks and their fleet were destroyed in “The Parting of the Ways”.

The 2006 series finale “Army of Ghosts”/”Doomsday” featured a squad of four Dalek survivors from the old Empire, known as the Cult of Skaro, led by a black Dalek named “Sec”, that had survived the Time War by escaping into the Void between dimensions. They emerged, along with a Time Lord prison vessel containing millions of Daleks, at Canary Wharf due to the actions of the Torchwood Institute and Cybermen from a parallel world. This resulted in a Cyberman-Dalek clash in London, which was resolved when the Tenth Doctor caused both factions to be sucked back into the Void. The Cult survived by utilising an “emergency temporal shift” to escape. They would later appear in the two-part story “Daleks in Manhattan”/”Evolution of the Daleks”, in which whilst stranded in 1930s New York, they set up a base in the partially built Empire State Building and attempt to rebuild the Dalek race. To this end Dalek Sec merges with a human being to become a Human/Dalek hybrid. The Cult then set about creating “Human Daleks” by “formatting” the brains of a few thousand captured humans, with the intention of producing hybrids which remain fully human in appearance but with Dalek minds. The plot is ultimately foiled due to interference by the Doctor, and Cult members Daleks Sec, Jast and Thay are destroyed. The remaining Cult member, Dalek Caan, once again escapes using a temporal shift.

The Daleks returned in the 2008 series’ two-part finale, “The Stolen Earth”/”Journey’s End”, accompanied once again by their creator Davros. The story reveals that Caan’s temporal shift sent him into the Time War where he rescued Davros at the cost of his own sanity. The episode depicts a Dalek invasion of Earth led by Caan, Davros, and a red Supreme Dalek, who has kept Caan and Davros imprisoned in “The Vault”, a section of the Dalek flagship, the ”Crucible”. Davros and the Daleks plan to destroy reality itself with a “reality bomb”. The plan fails due to the interference of the Doctor, his companions and Caan himself, who has been manipulating events to destroy the Daleks after realising the severity of the atrocities they have committed. The Daleks returned in the 2010 episode “Victory of the Daleks”, the third episode of the latest series; Daleks who escaped the destruction of Davros’ empire fell back in time and, by chance, managed to retrieve the ‘Progenitor’. This is a tiny apparatus which contains ‘original’ Dalek DNA. The activation of the Progenitor results in the creation of a “new paradigm” of Daleks. The New Paradigm Daleks deem their creators inferior and exterminate them; their creators make no resistance to this, deeming themselves inferior as well. They are organised into different castes (drone, scientist, strategists, supreme and eternal), which are identifiable with colour-coded armour instead of the black identification plates under the eyestalk used by their predecessors.

The Daleks appeared once more in the fifth series episode “The Pandorica Opens” as part of a alliance with every other enemy of the Doctor, and sealed him in the Pandorica in order to save the universe from his actions in the future.

The Daleks appeared in ”The Big Bang”, the fifth series finale, which was broadcast in the United Kingdom on Saturday 26 June 2010. Due to the cracks in time and space, the Daleks never existed and are nothing but stone statues. After the Pandorica opens, the light from it restores a single Dalek to life. The Stone Dalek then tries to exterminate the doctor and his friends , shoots the Doctor and River Song destroys it in turn. Whether or not the ‘rewritten’ timeline now includes the events of Victory of the Daleks is uncertain, and may need to be resolved in a future episode.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Dalek, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

Peacocke self-identified as a panentheist, which he was careful to distinguish from being a pantheist.[http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/7422/Default.aspx] He is perhaps best known for his attempts to rigorously argue that evolution and Christianity need not be at odds (see ”Creation-evolution controversy”). He may be the most well-known theological advocate of theistic evolution as author of the essay “Evolution: The Disguised Friend of Faith?”.

Arthur Peacocke describes a position which is referred to elsewhere as “front-loading”, after the fact that it suggests that evolution is entirely consistent with an all-knowing, all-powerful God who exists throughout time, sets initial conditions and natural laws, and knows what the result will be. An implication of Peacocke’s particular stance is that all scientific analyses of physical processes reveal God’s actions. All scientific propositions are thus necessarily coherent with religious ones.

According to Peacocke, Darwinism is not an enemy to religion, but a friend (thus the title of his piece, “The Disguised Friend”). Peacocke offers five basic arguments in support of his position outlined below.

Process as immanence

The process-as-immanence argument is meant to deal with Phillip Johnson’s contention that naturalism reduces God to a distant entity. According to Peacocke, God continuously creates the world and sustains it in its general order and structure; He makes things make themselves. Biological evolution is an example o

Chance optimizing initial conditions

The chance-optimizing-initial-conditions argument runs as follows: the role of chance in biological evolution can be reconciled with a purposive creator because “there is a creative interplay of ‘chance’ and law apparent in the evolution of living matter by natural selection.” (475) There is no metaphysical implication of the physical fact of “chance”; randomness in mutation of DNA “does not, in itself, preclude these events from displaying regular trends of manifesting inbuilt propensities at the higher levels of organisms, populations and eco-systems.” (476) Chance is to be seen as “eliciting the potentialities that the physical cosmos possessed ab initio.” (477)

Random process of evolution as purposive

The random-process-of-evolution-as-purposive argument is perhaps best considered an adjunct to the process-as-immanence argument, and a direct response to Johnson’s continued references to evolution as “purposeless.” Peacocke suggests

Natural evil as necessity

The natural-evil-as-necessity argument is meant to be a response to the classic philosophical argument of the Problem of Evil, which contends that an all-powerful, all-knowing and beneficent God cannot exist as such because natural evil (mudslides which crush the legs of innocent children, for instance) occurs. Peacocke contends that the capacities necessary for consciousness and thus a relationship with God also enable their possessors to experience pain, as necessary for identifying injury and disease. Preventing the experience of pain would prevent the possibility of consciousness. Peacocke also takes an eastern argument for natural evil of that which made must be unmade for a new making to occur; there is no creation without destruction. To Peacocke, it is necessary that organisms go out of existence for others to come into it. Thus, pain, suffering and death are necessary evils in a universe which will result in beings capable of having a relationship with God. God is said to suffer with His creation because He loves creation, conforming the deity to be consistent with the Christian God.

Jesus as pinnacle of human evolution

The Jesus-as-pinnacle-of-human-evolution argument proposed by Peacocke is that Jesus Christ is

the actualization of [evolutionary] potentiality can properly be regarded as the consummation of the purposes of God already incompletely manifested in evolving humanity…. The paradigm of what God intends for all human beings, now revealed as having the potentiality of responding to, of being open to, of becoming united with, God. (484-5)

Similar propositions had previously been put by writers such as C. S. Lewis (in ”Mere Christianity”) and Teilhard de Chardin.

Relationship between theology and science typology

In the introduction to ”The Sciences and Theology in the Twentieth Century”, Peacocke lists a set of eight relationships that could fall upon a two-dimensional grid. This list is in part a survey of deliberations that occurred at the World Council of Churches Conference on “Faith, Science and the Future”, Cambridge, Mass., 1979.

#”Science and theology are concerned with two distinct realms”

#*Reality is thought of as a duality, operating within the human world, in terms of natural/supernatural, spatio-temporal/the eternal, the order of nature/the realm of faith, the natural(or physical)/the historical, the physical-and-biological/mind-and-spirit.

#”Science and theology are interacting approaches to the same reality”

#*Accuracy of this view is widely and strongly resisted among those who otherwise differ in their theologies

#”Science and theology are two distinct non-interacting approaches to the same reality”

#*The idea that theology tries to answer the question why, while science tries to answer the question how

#”Science and theology constitute two different language systems”

#*Each are two distinct “language games” whose logical pre-conditions can have no bearing upon each other according to late-Wittgensteinian theory

#”Science and theology are generated by quite different attitudes (in their practitioners)”

#*the attitude of science is that of objectivity and logical neutrality; that of theology personal involvement and commitment.

#”Science and theology are both subservient to their objects and can only be defined in relation to them”

#*Both are intellectual disciplines shaped by their object (nature or God) to which they direct their attention. Both include a confessional and a rational factor.

#”Science and theology may be integrated”

#”Science generates a metaphysic in terms of which theology is then formulated”

#*For example Alfred North Whitehead’s metaphysics forms the basis of process theology

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Arthur Peacocke, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

K9 is an indigenous system of an all-welded steel armour construction which is rated to withstand impact by 14.5& mm armour piercing shells, 152& mm shell fragments, and anti-personnel mines. The main armament consists of a 155& mm/52 caliber ordnance with a maximum firing range of 40& km. State-of-the-art mobility subsystems include a engine with potential for growth and hydropneumatic suspension unit, a requirement for Korea’s rugged mountainous terrain.

It was designed to give the artillery wing of the Republic of Korea Army a significant improvement in capability. With a claimed range of 40& km, it offers greater mobility, longer range, higher rate of fire, and increased battlefield survivability, as it can quickly be brought into action, open fire, and come out of action. It is less likely to be engaged by counter-battery fire, by relying on shoot-and-scoot. The unit also supports full NBC protection.

Time-On-Target

The K9 has the ability to fire its shells in time-on-target mode. In the TOT mode, the K9 is able to lob three shells in under 15 seconds—1 shell every 5 seconds—each in different trajectories so that all of the shells will arrive on their target at the same time. This is also known as Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact (MRSI).

K10 Ammunition Resupply Vehicle (ARV)

The K10 is an automatic ammunition resupply vehicle built on the K9 platform, part of the K9 Thunder system. The K10 is fully tracked and has the same mobility as the K9, and can follow the main artillery battery without lagging behind. Max

The reloading process is fully automated. The reloading is done through a munition bridge on the K10 that extends out to lock itself into a reception hole located at the rear of the K9. This allows the unit to rearm itself under harsh combat conditions without the crew having to expose themselves to the combat environment.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article K9 Thunder, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

”Master of Orion” is a turn-based game in which players alternate actions and decisions with computer-controlled opponents. A mouse is needed, but hot keys can access many functions.

The main screen is a scrollable map of the galaxy; clicking on a star system makes the rightmost part of the main screen display information about the planet there. If the player has not explored the system, only the word “unexplored” appears; otherwise the panel shows the planet’s current and maximum population; if the player has a colony there, it also offers controls to allocate the colony’s output.

There is a separate space combat map, and additional screens for managing research, diplomacy and espionage. The diplomacy and espionage screen acts partly as a menu that provides access to screens about specific aspects. There is also a Planets List screen that can be used in managing an empire’s economy.

Lockable sliders are used to allocate a colony’s output between ship construction, planetary defenses, factory construction, ecology or research. Within each of these industry sectors, there is a fixed sequence of activities to which resources are allocated; for example defense effort will be used to upgrade existing missile bases if improved missile types have been discovered, then to build or upgrade planetary shields, and finally to build additional missile bases. The technology screen uses a similar set of lockable sliders to allocate research spending between the 6 technology areas.

Overview

The game begins with a single col

Victory conditions

Victory is gained either by eliminating all opponents or by being elected supreme leader of the galaxy at a meeting of the High Council. Elections are held every 25 turns after two-thirds of the planets in the galaxy have been colonized, and each empire’s voting strength depends on its population. To be elected High Master, an empire’s leader must gain at least two-thirds of all available votes, with abstentions counting as a vote against both candidates. Some combination of conquest and diplomacy is usually necessary in order to gain such a large majority. Once a High Master is elected the player can accept the result or challenge it; the latter results in a “Final War” that is fought to the death between the High Master’s supporters and the dissident.

Despite the game’s name, conquering the Orion star system is neither necessary nor sufficient on its own to win the game. The planet in the Orion system is unusually large and extremely valuable, since artifacts left by its former inhabitants give its conqueror some very advanced military technologies, one of which players cannot research for themselves, and a colony there will be four times more productive in research than on most other planets. Other races are also more likely to support the empire that holds Orion during High Council elections. In order to colonize Orion or capture its technology one must destroy the robotic Guardian warship, a feat that requires a large, advanced fleet.

Economics

All of a colony’s outputs are based on its industrial production, including research. All citizens are capable of industrial production, but are significantly more productive when assisted by factories. There is a limit on the number of factories a unit of population (notionally 1M individuals) can operate, but players can increase this by researching and building upgrades. The cost of upgrades rises rapidly unless the player first researches technologies that reduce factory costs.

Players can allocate a planet’s industrial output to various combinations of: building or upgrading factories; building or upgrading a planet’s shields and missile bases; research; spaceship construction; and ecology (pollution control, terraforming, increasing population growth). A planet’s output can also be transferred to the planetary reserve (treasury), but with a 50% penalty.

The treasury can also be increased by scrapping ships or missile bases, by gifts from other empires and by random donations from non-playable rich merchants. Its funds can be used to boost the output of other planets, subject to strict limitations, and to provide gifts to other empires.

The need to clean up pollution is a serious constraint on economic growth in the early game. Various technologies reduce the cost of cleanup to the point that pollution may not be a significant factor in later stages. Players must also pay maintenance costs for ships, missile bases and spies, which is financed by a percentage tax that is calculated by the software and applied to production at all colonies; players cannot control how this burden is allocated between colonies.

Planets

The software generates a map randomly at the start of each game; the player’s only influence over the map generator is the ability to choose the size of the galaxy and the number and difficulty of AI opponents. Star systems have at most one colonizable planet and a few have none. Planets vary in the following ways:

*Mineral wealth dramatically influences a colony’s industrial productivity when building or upgrading factories, building or upgrading defenses and building ships; it has no impact on the productivity of research nor of ecological improvements such as pollution control or terraforming.

* Habitability influences population growth rates: ”fertile” planets increase growth rates by 50% and ”Gaia” planets by 100%, while ”hostile” planets halve them. There are seven normal and six hostile planet types; the various hostile types require increasingly advanced technology to colonize, which extends the exploration and colonization phases of ”MoO” for much longer than in most 4X games. Hostile planets are the most likely to be rich or ultra-rich in minerals. All planets can be upgraded to Gaia class with the appropriate technologies.

*Size, which determines the planet’s initial population capacity. This can be more than doubled by various kinds of terraforming.

*Artifact worlds contain relics of a now-vanished advanced civilization. These usually provide a free technology advance to the first empire that discovers the planet, and always double the research productivity of a colony there, except that on Orion the research productivity of a colony is quadrupled.

Technology

The designers regard technology as the most important contribution to a player’s success. Advances can be acquired through research, trading, spying or conquest. Six technology areas can be researched to produce new advances:

#Computers: spaceship systems that improve combat effectiveness; factory controls that increase the number of factories each colonist can operate; scanners that monitor the movements of other empires’ ships and eventually can even “explore” planets remotely; and a weapon that can destroy other ships’ computer systems. Computer technology advances also improve the effectiveness of spies in both offensive and defensive operations.

#Construction: reductions in the cost of building and upgrading factories; reductions in pollution; improved armor; and self-repair systems for ships.

#Force fields: protective shields for ships, planets and ground troops; devices that make it harder to hit the players’ ships; and some special weapons.

#Planetology: reductions in the cost of pollution control; colonization of hostile planets; terraforming, which increases the maximum population of a planet; the ability to increase populations more efficiently; biological weapons and defenses against such weapons.

#Propulsion: increases in the range and speed of starships; some special weapons and combat systems. Range increases are particularly important in early colonization.

#Weapons for use by ships, missile bases and ground troops.

If a ship uses a component from a particular technology area, further advances in that area reduce the cost and size of the component; this effect is called “miniaturization”. When one has researched all of the technologies in an area of the tech tree, further research can discover “advanced technologies” in that area, which do not provide specific new capabilities but increase the miniaturization of ship components.

Players can research several technologies at the same time, controlling the allocation of research resources by means of lockable sliders on the Technology screen. Each research project returns “interest” on resources invested in it, using a formula that produces the greatest return if the project accounts for 15% of the total research budget. There is a small random element in the number of turns required to achieve an advance& – it may take a few more or less than one would predict on the basis of simple arithmetic.

In each game each player is allowed to see a different random subset of the technologies at each level. On the other hand there are often alternative technologies that provide similar benefits. These features force players to adapt rather than follow the same favorite research strategy in each game. One can also make up for any important gaps by spying, technology trading or conquest.

Diplomacy

”Master of Orion” provides a wide range of diplomatic negotiations: gifts of money or technology; one-time technology trades; trade pacts that boost industrial output; non-aggression and alliance treaties. Players can also threaten each other, declare war and arrange cease-fires Each AI player remembers others’ actions, both positive and negative, and will be unwilling to form alliances with a player who has broken previous treaties with it.

Spaceship design

Ships can be used to colonize planets, scout for planets worth colonizing, attack other races and defend against attacks. Only six ship designs can be used at a time; beyond that, a previous slot must be emptied and all ships of that class scrapped before a new class can be designed. Ships cannot be upgraded or refitted with new technology, except that increases in travel range automatically benefit all ships.

There are four hull sizes; smaller sizes are harder to hit while larger ships can survive more damage and hold more components. There are eight types of components, each with different effects:

#Battle computers increase the chance of a beam weapon hitting and damaging a target

#Shields reduce the damage done by opponents’ weapons

#Electronic countermeasures reduce the risk of being hit by missiles

#Armor determines the amount of damage a ship of a given hull size can withstand before being destroyed

#Engines supply power to systems, and determine the speed of interstellar travel and a ship’s maximum maneuverability during combat

#Combat maneuverability determines how fast a ship can move during battle and how hard it is to hit; maximum maneuverability is determined by the engine type used

#Weapons: missiles, beams, bombs and biological weapons (the last reduce a colony’s population without damaging buildings)

#Special systems which have varying effects: improve a ship’s range or maneuverability; improve weapon accuracy or range; provide defensive, offensive, repair or sensing advantages; a few “special” weapons, some of which affect whole stacks of enemy ships; colony bases are also considered special systems

Space combat and invasions

Ships can travel to any star system within their range and combat always occurs in orbit over a planet – it is impossible to intercept enemy ships in deep space. All ships of the same class form a single stack, moving and firing as a unit. Players can control space combat manually or ask the software to resolve combat automatically. Battles are almost always decided by numbers and technology rather than by clever tactics. An attacker can bomb a planet during combat and, if it wins the space combat, can bomb more intensively immediately afterwards.

Invading an enemy colony without destroying all defending ships and missile bases will result in the loss of some or all of the invading ground forces before they land, and hostile planets can not be invaded unless attackers have technology that allows them to colonize an at least equally hostile type of planet. There are no specialist invasion ships; invading forces are drawn from the population of one or more colonies, which reduces the population of the planet(s) from which they are sent.

Invasions are depicted in real-time but players cannot control combat. Results depend on numbers, technology and (if one of the races involved is Bulrathi) racial ground combat bonus. Invasion is expensive, but usually provides worthwhile advantages if successful: the production capacity of any remaining factories, plundering of technologies if enough factories survived the attack, and control over a new system that extends the range of the invader’s ships. A successful invasion exterminates the previous inhabitants and the surviving troops form the planet’s new population.

Races

Players choose to be one of 10 pre-defined races – one cannot create customized races. The Klackons and Meklar have different types of advantage in industrial production; the Sakkra have very fast population growth; the Psilons are the best at research; the Mrrshans and Alkari have different types of advantage in space combat; the Bulrathi are the best at ground combat; the Humans have advantages in trade and diplomacy; the Darloks excel at spying and sabotage; and the Silicoids can colonize even the most hostile planets without any research and are not constrained by pollution, but have slow population growth.

The typical race is very good in one research subject and below average in another. However, the Psilons are very good in all areas, while the Silicoids are above average in computers, which is useful for spying and sabotage, but are weak in all other research areas. The Humans excel in one area, and are good in two others. They and the Sakkra have no weak subjects.

Each race has a pre-defined initial relationship with each other race, and they gradually return to these relationships unless these are improved or damaged by events. Most races start with neutral relationships to most other races, except that each has an uneasy or in some cases belligerent relationship to one other race. The exceptions are the Humans, which initially have amicable relationships with all others, and the Darloks, whose espionage skills make them objects of suspicion to all except the Humans.

The races also have “personalities” which vary from one game to another when played by the AI. Their attitudes to other races can vary from honorable (reliable friend and unforgiving enemy) or pacifist to aggressive or xenophobic. Each has a major policy objective which guides their research and economic management; for example militarists build combat ships as fast as possible and prioritize technologies which have military benefits, while ecologists put a lot of effort into pollution control and terraforming. Each race’s behavior varies from one game to another, because in both attitude and policy objective each race has a most probable trait and less probable ones.

Random events

”Master of Orion” will sometimes produce random events which can be harmful or advantageous. These include discovery of ancient ships and technology, changes to planetary conditions that alter the planet’s population or mineral richness, diplomatic blunders, changes to research, industry or treasury production, planetary rebellion, space piracy and attacks by space monsters that can destroy colonies. Random events can be disabled by means of a cheat code.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Master of Orion, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

*Rose absorbing the energy of the time vortex and destroying the Daleks is similar to the resolution of the last regular Eighth Doctor comic strip story in ”Doctor Who Magazine”. In ”The Flood”, the Doctor is thrown into the vortex by the Cybermen, and emerges suffused with enough power to deliberately trigger a “temporal meltdown” which destroys them. He relinquishes the power to rescue Destrii, his companion at the time (”DWM” #346-#353).

*This was the first story to feature the Doctor regenerating while standing up, and the fourth time that he has been seen to regenerate inside the TARDIS console room; the other stories are ”The Tenth Planet” (1966), ”The Caves of Androzani” (1984) and ”Time and the Rani” (1987). The Master later regenerated in the TARDIS, also while standing up, in “Utopia” (2007). Later still, the Doctor regenerates in the TARDIS, standing up, in ”The End of Time” (2010).

*A musical cue with eerie sounding vocals is heard when Rose sees the graffiti and later after she has absorbed the energy of the time vortex. On the DVD commentary of “‘Rose”, Russell T Davies and Phil Collinson jokingly call this voice “President Flavia”, a reference to a Time Lady character from ”The Five Doctors”. On the soundtrack released in 2006, it was known as “The Doctor’s Theme”. Davies says that this voice is heard “whenever it gets too Time Lord-y”. It was also heard in the 2005 series episodes “

*In “The Age of Steel”, Mickey tells Jake, “I once saved the universe in a big yellow truck.”

*Jack’s temporary death marks the first time since Adric’s death in 1982′s ”Earthshock” that a companion has been killed on-screen in the television series, although Grace Holloway and disputed companion Chang Lee are also killed (and revived) in the 1996 telefilm. In the Torchwood episode “Everything Changes” (2006), Jack reveals that he can no longer die; the Tenth Doctor confirms in “Utopia” (2007) that Rose’s bringing him back to life has made Jack immortal.

*John Barrowman reprises his role as Captain Jack Harkness in the ”Doctor Who” spinoff ”Torchwood”, and returns to ”Doctor Who” in the Tenth Doctor stories “Utopia”, “The Sound of Drums”, “Last of the Time Lords”, “The Stolen Earth” and “Journey’s End”.

*The Doctor’s reference about never knowing what will occur with regeneration is similar to a statement made by the Fifth Doctor in ”Castrovalva”.

*The Master displays knowledge of this episode’s events in “Last of the Time Lords”, when comparing Rose to the Doctor’s later companion, Martha Jones: “Days of old, Doctor, you had companions who could absorb the time vortex… This one’s useless.”

*Jack’s “Gunnerball” weapon is later used in ”The Stolen Earth”/”Journey’s End”, but appears to have a more enhanced power supply.

*Rose convinces Jackie to help her by describing the conclusion of ”Father’s Day”.

The TARDIS

*The idea that the TARDIS console directly harnesses the energies which drive the ship (the heart of the TARDIS) and is at least in some sense alive and self-aware dates back to ”The Edge of Destruction” (1964). It was re-introduced in “Boom Town”, which also established some of the uses to which those energies could be put ”in extremis”. This is a concept which has also been explored in a number of spin-offs, particularly in the Big Finish Productions audio play, ”Zagreus”.

*The depiction of the Vortex energy Rose uses to defeat the Daleks and revive Captain Jack is superficially similar to the energy used by the TARDIS to revive Grace and Chang Lee in the 1996 television movie.

*Rose claims that the TARDIS has no defences. However, earlier stories in the original series have established that the TARDIS is protected by a force field generator of considerable strength (”The Armageddon Factor”, 1979, among others). In addition, the TARDIS has a Hostile Action Displacement System (HADS), seen in ”The Krotons” (1969), which teleports it away from potentially devastating attacks.

*The TARDIS’s ability to materialise around an object and have that object appear in the Console Room was previously demonstrated in ”The Time Monster” (1972) and ”Logopolis” (1981). Although both instances involved the Doctor’s TARDIS materialising around the Master’s TARDIS and creating a recursive loop, the second showed the Master’s TARDIS materialising around a real police box. This is the first time on television that a Dalek has been seen inside the TARDIS.

*Jack destroys the Dalek in the TARDIS with his one-shot weapon. In ”The Hand of Fear” (1976) the Doctor claims that the inside of the TARDIS exists in a state of temporal grace which prevents weapons from being fired inside it, although the circuit was not working by the time of ”Earthshock” (1982).

Daleks

*The last Dalek story to feature an Emperor — who was the Daleks’ creator, Davros — was ”Remembrance of the Daleks” (1988). The Emperor in this episode represents a return to an earlier concept of the Daleks’ leader, seen in ”The Evil of the Daleks” (1967); whenever the Daleks had an on-screen leader in later appearances, it was a Dalek Supreme or Davros.

*The use of human genetic material or body parts in the creation of new Daleks was pioneered by Davros in the Sixth Doctor serial ”Revelation of the Daleks” (1985) but without the problems associated with the human factor in the Second Doctor story ”The Evil of the Daleks” (1967). The idea that the genetic material alone is responsible for the human values is a feature of biological determinism, an element of the nature versus nurture debate.

*This episode shows the Daleks not only hovering, but flying through the vacuum of space.

*Jack tells his defenders that their ammunition consist of bastic bullets, which can penetrate Dalek casings. Bastic bullets were first mentioned as having this property in ”Revelation of the Daleks”.

*The Doctor claims that he is known in Dalek legend as “The Oncoming Storm”, a title that first appeared in the Virgin New Adventures novel ”Love and War” by Paul Cornell (who wrote the episode “Father’s Day”). In the novel, the title was applied to the Doctor by the Draconians, although it is possible either they or the Daleks appropriated the title from one another. In the spin-off media, the better known title of the Doctor in Dalek lore is the Ka Faraq Gatri, the “Bringer of Darkness” or “Destroyer of Worlds”, first used in Ben Aaronovitch’s novelisation of his serial ”Remembrance of the Daleks”.

*The Emperor refers to the TARDIS-infused Rose as the “Abomination”. In Ben Aaronovitch’s novelisation of his story ”Remembrance of the Daleks”, the same term is applied to the Special Weapons Dalek.

*The Emperor Dalek’s final words are “I cannot die!”, the same words said by Davros at the conclusion of ”Resurrection of the Daleks” (1984) when he is apparently dying from a virus. In Davros’s case, he survived to return another day, but whether this Emperor does remains to be seen. He is mentioned later in “Doomsday” by Rose and the Doctor and again by the Cult of Skaro in “Daleks in Manhattan”.

*Several new Dalek phrases were heard this episode, in addition to Bad Wolf’s “Alert, alert! We are detected!” These were “Worship him!” and “Do not blaspheme!” These seem to be strictly limited to the followers of the god-complex Emperor Dalek, however.

*In contrast to “Dalek”, the normal humans seem aware of the existence of the Daleks with Rodrick commenting “They were wiped out thousands of years ago”. This could be a result of the 2006 episodes Army of Ghosts and Doomsday and the 2008 episodes The Stolen Earth and Journey’s End

*The Daleks remain the only ”Doctor Who” villains to have faced every incarnation of the Doctor. With the exception of Paul McGann, the Daleks have been seen in the televised stories of all of the Doctors. Only the voices of the Daleks were heard when they “exterminated” the Gordon Tipple incarnation of the Master at the beginning of the ”Doctor Who” television movie (1996). The Eighth Doctor has also faced the Daleks in several Big Finish Productions (as voiced by McGann) audio plays and BBC books, and the Tenth Doctor made his debut at the end of this story before facing the Daleks in the 2006 finale, “Doomsday”.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article The Parting of the Ways, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

In physics, motion in the universe is described through two sets of apparently contradictory laws of mechanics. Motions of all large scale and familiar objects in the universe (such as projectiles, planets, cells, and humans) are described by classical mechanics. Whereas the motion of very small atomic and sub-atomic sized objects is described by quantum mechanics.

Classical mechanics

Classical mechanics is used for describing the motion of macroscopic objects, from projectiles to parts of machinery, as well as astronomical objects, such as spacecraft, planets, stars, and galaxies. It produces very accurate results within these domains, and is one of the oldest and largest subjects in science, engineering and technology.

Classical mechanics is fundamentally based on Newton’s Laws of Motion. These laws describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and the motion of that body. They were first compiled by Sir Isaac Newton in his work ”Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica”, first published on July 5, 1687. His three laws are:

# In the absence of a net external force, a body either is at rest or moves with constant velocity.

# The net external force on a body is equal to the mass of that body times its acceleration; F& =& ”m”a. Alternatively, force is proportional to the time derivative of momentum.

# Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

New

Classical mechanics was later further enhanced by Albert Einstein’s special relativity and general relativity. Special relativity explains the motion of objects with a high velocity, approaching the speed of light; general relativity is employed to handle gravitation motion at a deeper level.

Quantum mechanics

Quantum mechanics is a set of principles describing physical reality at the atomic level of matter (molecules and atoms) and the subatomic (electrons, protons, and even smaller particles). These descriptions include the simultaneous wave-like and particle-like behavior of both matter and radiation energy, this described in the wave–particle duality.

In contrast to classical mechanics, where accurate measurements and predictions can be calculated about location and velocity, in the quantum mechanics of a subatomic particle, one can never specify its state, such as its simultaneous location and velocity, with complete certainty (this is called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

In addition to describing the motion of atomic level phenomenon, quantum mechanics is useful in understanding some large scale phenomenon such as superfluidity, superconductivity, and biological systems, including the function of smell receptors and the structures of proteins.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Motion (physics), under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

The U.S. E133 cluster bomb was developed prior to Richard M. Nixon’s 1969 declaration that ended the U.S. biological weapons program. At the time of Nixon’s declaration the E133 was considered the most likely candidate in the U.S. biological arsenal to actually be used in a combat situation.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article E133 cluster bomb, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

Grandin became well known after being described by Oliver Sacks in the title narrative of his book ”An Anthropologist on Mars” (1995); the title is derived from Grandin’s description of how she feels around neurotypical people. She first spoke in public about autism in the mid-1980s at the request of Ruth C. Sullivan, one of the founders of the Autism Society of America. Sullivan writes:

I first met Temple in the mid-1980s …[at the] annual [ASA] conference…. Standing on the periphery of the group was a tall young woman who was obviously interested in the discussions. She seemed shy and pleasant, but mostly she just listened…. I learned her name was Temple Grandin… It wasn’t until later in the week that I realized she was someone with autism….I approached her and asked if she’d be willing to speak at the next year’s [ASA] conference. She agreed….The next year… Temple first addressed an [ASA] audience…. people were standing at least three deep….The audience couldn’t get enough of her. Here, for the first time, was someone who could tell us from her own experience what it was like to be extremely sound sensitive (“like being tied to the rail and the train’s coming”)… She was asked many questions: “Why does my son do so much spinning?” “Why does he hold his hands to his ears? “Why doesn’t he look at me?” She spoke from her own experience, and her insight was impressive. There were tears in more than one set of eyes that day…. Templ

Grandin has also been featured on major television programs, such as ABC’s ”Primetime Live”, the ”Today Show”, and ”Larry King Live”, and written up in ”Time” magazine, ”People” magazine, ”Forbes”, and ”The New York Times”.

She was the subject of the ”Horizon” documentary “The Woman Who Thinks Like A Cow”, first broadcast by the BBC on June 8, 2006 and ”Nick News” in the spring of 2006. She has also been a subject in the series ”First Person” by Errol Morris.

Grandin is the focus of a semi-biographical HBO film, titled ”Temple Grandin”, starring Claire Danes as Grandin. The movie was released in 2010 and, on August 29, 2010, at the 62nd Primetime Emmy Awards, the film, nominated in 15 Emmy categories, received five awards, including Outstanding Made for Television Movie and Best Actress in a Drama for Danes. Grandin was on stage as the award was accepted, and spoke briefly on the microphone to the audience. Coincidentally, the 2010 Emmy Awards happened on Grandin’s birthday. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1278469/ ”Temple Grandin (2010),” IMDB.com.]

On November 1, 2009, Grandin was featured in a three-hour interview on C-SPAN called “In Depth with Temple Grandin”.

Based on personal experience, Grandin advocates early intervention to address autism, and supportive teachers who can direct fixations of the child with autism in fruitful directions. She has described her hypersensitivity to noise and other sensory stimuli. She claims she is a primarily visual thinker and has said that language is her second language. Temple attributes her success as a humane livestock facility designer to her ability to recall detail, which is a characteristic of her visual memory. Grandin compares her memory to full-length movies in her head that can be replayed at will, allowing her to notice small details. She is also able to view her memories using slightly different contexts by changing the positions of the lighting and shadows. Her insight into the minds of cattle has taught her to value the changes in details to which animals are particularly sensitive, and to use her visualization skills to design thoughtful and humane animal-handling equipment. She was named a fellow of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers in 2009.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Temple Grandin, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

Parents

* Alan Spaulding (biological father)

* Lucia Renaldi (biological mother)

* Joseph “Joe” Augustino (adoptive father, deceased)

* Angela Augustino (adoptive mother, deceased)

Sibling(s)

* Phillip Spaulding (biological paternal adopted half-brother)

* Alan-Michael Spaulding (biological paternal half-brother)

* Peyton Spaulding (biological paternal half-sister)

* Eden August (adoptive sister)

Marital status (at time death)

* Natalia Rivera (married) [2008]

Past marriage(s)

* Harley Cooper (divorced; 2005-2007)

Children

* Raphael “Rafe” Rivera (son, with Natalia Rivera)

Grandchildren

* Unnamed Child (sex unknown, via Rafe, aborted)

Other relatives

* Brandon Spaulding (biological paternal grandfather, deceased)

* Penelope Winthrop (biological paternal grandmother, deceased)

* Alexandra Spaulding (biological paternal aunt)

* Victoria Spaulding (biological paternal aunt)

* Amanda Spaulding (biological paternal aunt)

* Elizabeth “Lizzie” Spaulding (biological niece)

* Alan Cooper “Zach” Spauling (biological nephew)

* James Spaulding (biological nephew)

* Emma Spencer Spaulding (biological niece)

* Brandon “Lujack” Luvonaczek (biological paternal cousin, deceased)

* Nicholas “Nick” McHenry Spaulding (biological paternal cousin)

* Victoria “Vicky” Spaulding (biological paternal cousin)>

* Sarah Randall (biological great-niece)

Romances

* Natalia Rivera (lovers)

* Bailey Brook (lovers)

* Harley Cooper (dated/engaged)

* Natalia Rivera (dated/engaged)

* Olivia Spencer (flirtation)

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Gus Aitoro, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.

His major thesis was that the stress and chaos in Europe from 1914 to 1945 were the symptoms of a structure of consciousness that was at the end of its effectiveness, and which heralded the birth of a new form of consciousness. The first evidence he witnessed was in the novel use of language and literature. He modified this position in 1943 so as to include the changes which were occurring in the arts and sciences at that time.

His thesis of the failure of one structure of consciousness alongside the emergence of a new one led him to inquire as to whether such had not occurred before. His work, ”Ursprung und Gegenwart” is the result of that inquiry. It was published in various editions from 1949 to 1953, and translated into English as ”The Ever-Present Origin”. Working from the historical evidence of almost every major field, (e.g., poetry, music, visual arts, architecture, philosophy, religion, physics and the other natural sciences, etc.) Gebser saw traces of the emergence (which he called “efficiency”) and collapse (“deficiency”) of various structures of consciousness throughout history.

Gebser’s theory is that human consciousness is in transition, and that these transitions are “mutations” and not continuous. These jumps or transformations involve structural changes in both mind and body. There are a number of these levels:

# The ”archaic” structure

# The ”magic” structure

# The ”mythical” structure

# The ”mental” structure

# The

The structures of consciousness

Gebser notes that the various structures of consciousness are revealed by their relationship to space and time. For example, the mythical structure embodies time as cyclical/rhythmic and space as enclosed. Whereas the mental structure lives time as linear, directed or “progressive” and space becomes the box-like homogeneous space of geometry — a vacuum. But just as each consciousness structure erupts it also eventually becomes deficient. The deficient form of the mental structure Gebser called the ‘rational’ structure. Of particular significance is his realization that previous consciousness structures continue to operate. The rational structure of awareness seeks to deny the other structures with its claim that humans are exclusively rational.

The mental structure

The rational structure is known for its extremes as evidenced in various “nothing but…” statements. Extreme materialism claims that “everything is nothing but matter — atoms”. Philosophy, the love of wisdom, is replaced with instrumental reason, the ability “to make”. Contemplation—looking inward—is devalued in relation to what one “can do”. “Wise men” fall out of favor and are replaced by the “man of action.” Successes in technologically re-shaping matter offer solutions to some problems but also give rise to problems of their own making. Mechanized slaughter of two world wars and the new atomic weapons exemplified and symbolized the expression of the ontology of the rational/mental structure. Living becomes hard to bear in such a consciousness structure.

Some saw the cause of this despair as a lack of values or ethics. Gebser saw that it is the very consciousness structure itself which has played out to its inherent end. He saw that its metaphysical presumptions necessarily led to this ethical dead end. A “value-free” ontology like materialism leads of necessity to living “without value”. Any attempt to remedy the situation by a return to “values” would ultimately fail. But it was through this very quagmire of “the decline of the West” that Gebser saw the emergence of a new structure of consciousness which he termed the integral.

The integral structure

The integral consciousness structure was made evident by a new relationship to space and time. In the second part of his work, Gebser set out to document the evidence that he saw throughout various human endeavors. Of note here were the incorporation of time in physics, the attempts to “paint” time in the visual arts and the like. Gebser noticed that the integral structure of consciousness was largely witnessed as the irruption of time into the “fixed-reality” of the mental structure. For Gebser, dualistically opposed and “static” categories of Being gave way to transparency.

Transparency points to how it is that the one is “given-through” and always “along-with” the other. For centuries, time was viewed as having distinct categories of past, present and future. These categories were said to be wholly distinct one from the other. Of course, this created all kinds of difficulties regarding how beings moved from one category to the other — from present to past, for example. What integral awareness notices is that though we may utilize categorical thinking for various purposes, we also have the realization that time is an indivisible whole. That various beings in the present are crystallized from the past, and which also extend into the future. In fact, without already having an integral awareness, one could have no notion of time as “past” or “present”, etc. Without the awareness of the whole, one would be stuck in a kind of “not-knowing” of an always only “now” not connected to any sense of past or future. Even the mental awareness which divides this whole into distinct categories could not have become aware of those categories without an awareness which was already integral.

Awareness is already integral. Gebser introduced the notion of ”presentiation” which means to make something present through transparency. An aspect of integral awareness is the presentiation, or “making present”, of the various structures of awareness. Rather than allowing only one (rational) structure to be valid, all structures are recognized, presented, one through the other. This awareness of and acceptance of the various structures enables one to live through the various structures rather than to be subjected to them (“lived by” them in German).

To realize the various structures within one’s language and habits, and even within one’s own life and self is a difficult task. But Gebser says that it is a task that we cannot choose to ignore without losing ourselves. This means that our so-called “objective thinking” is not without consequences, is not innocent. That to live “objectively” means to give life to the horrors of nihilism combined with the know how of highly “efficient” weapons. It means that “objectivity” gets applied to “engineering humanity” whether it is in the behavioral sciences or the physical sciences. He asks of us whether or not we have as of yet had our fill of those horrors. Are we willing to settle into the comfort of our daily life or to take on the process of change? He offers as a guiding note that just as there is also a time to act, there is also the much neglected time of contemplation. In a world where ”know-how” is overvalued, simple ”knowing” must also be nurtured in contemplation. Furthermore, he knew that thought was never simply a mental exercise restricted to one’s writing. He calls upon us to realize that ”we are what we think”.

Evidence for Gebser’s model

Gebser traces the evidence for the transformations of the structure of consciousness as they are concretized in historical artifacts. He sought to avoid calling this process “evolutionary”, since any such notion was illusory when applied to the “unfolding of consciousness.” Biological evolution, as Gebser noted at length, was an ”enclosing” process, that particularized a species to a limited environment. The unfolding of awareness is by contrast an opening-up. Any attempt to give a direction or goal to the unfolding of awareness is illusory in that it is based upon a limited notion of time, the mental, which is linear and hence implies “progress.” To be sure, Gebser was fully aware that any notion of “human progress” was already played out. He notes that “to progress” is to move toward but is also a moving away from, and he knew that the question as to the fate of humanity is still open, that for it to become closed would be the ultimate tragedy, but that such a closure remains a possibility. Our fate is not assured by any notion of “an evolution toward” any kind of ideal way of being.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article Jean Gebser, under the G. N. U. Free Documentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

No related posts.