which is mightier the sword/spear or shield?

i mean philosophically anyway.

people usually tend to say the point is moot because the sword or spear will never penetrate the shield. that sentence in itself means that the shield will always be mightier but there comes a time when people will make better swords to get past the shield and so we return to square one. but i think we can see where this is going. long story short, the sword will always be mightier than the shield.

i can hear you go: "now, hang on because based on the above logic it is only a matter of time before the shield catches up and beats the sword." True, but you do need to consider that the shield needed time to catch up to the sword. The shield is a reaction to the sword and this is true even in real life. i would be surprised if people created the shield first and then the sword. the question we should actually ask now at this point is why is the sword always mightier than the shield?

as we advance in technology and science, we as humans become more and more adept at looking for ways to kill one another more quickly, more efficiently and in greater numbers. in our modern society there are now fewer and fewer ways to defend oneself. the best example is the atomic and nuclear bombs. Now, the threat of nuclear annihilation has sort of passed but back during the Cold War, the problem wasn't really how to make a bigger, more powerful bomb. the problem was how do you defend yourself against such a weapon? Till this day, there are no good countermeasures to such a weapon and is a clear case where the sword is indeed mightier than the shield.

another example would be walls. Walls and basic fortifications were rife during the medieval ages and carried on until the renaissance if i'm not wrong and that was when they started falling out of favor. gunpowder was the reason walls were no longer effective. walls and forts were strong and to a degree could withstand long sieges against them but gunpowder weapons literally blew that idea out of the air. which is why walls are no longer a feature in modern cities.

--

just a random thought 

Analyzing where the SW "resistance" went wrong and how we ended up with SW 7

So, if you haven't guessed, i'm actually referring to Star Wars. It's taken awhile i will be frank.... that is awhile to digest and accept Disney's new Star Wars Universe and reality. I won't go into what i make of Disney's ham fisted approach to the fans and the universe's canon as a whole. I'll save that rant for another time. what i want to do is now, is offer some plausible theories on how we got to the intergalactic mess that is the story of episode 7.

30 years is a long time for anything to happen and if anything, in this sense, actually makes accepting the episode 7 story even more plausible. you would actually have time enough during those 30 years to cram in at least another sextology or quintology of episodes.

Let's start with the glaring topics, break them down and then try to assemble a chronology of likely events.

We'll start with what we know so far at the end of episode 6. Episode 6 should have in fact, been the last in the series but those of us who have researched and or continued on with the written universe are aware that the universe expanded and introduced the Solo family, the expanded Skywalker line and even more new aliens and crises. But regardless, that'll have to be a footnote for now. What we do know is that there would've been very few Rebel Alliance ships left in fighting condition after the battle. We also know of Han's relationship with Leia that blossomed into marriage. We know that Luke, according to Disney, would not have married Mara Jade. We know that Darth Vader was burned at Endor, his helmet would've likely been left on the Death Star 2. We know the Emperor has fallen into a very deep hole. We also know that the Millenium Falcon was still with the heroes at the time. We do know that based on the ending of episode 6, there appears to have been no immediate attempt to reform the government off the bat. Finally, we can also plainly see that because the Death Star 2 was built as a trap for the Rebel fleet, that there would have likely been a large chunk of Imperial forces remaining.

With all this in mind, let's try and tie it up with what we know of episode 7.

Let's start with the Rebel fleet and the name change to Resistance. The absence of the Rebel fleet in episode 7 was very telling. I mean, we've not seen any large or even small Rebel capital ships at all throughout the movie whereas off the bat, we immediately get to see a First Order star destroyer. We do know that the Resistance seems to like repurposing their X-wing fighters to become interplanetary espionage and warfighting fighters. That, and we know that the Resistance seems to be down to some kind of space skip looking garbage....troop hauler. So, what's the deal?

Simple answers being best, it would have to have been that there was some kind of cataclysmic series of battles that simply extinguished all known Rebel fleet elements. We must also consider that all ship building capabilities have been lost to the Rebels although it appears they were somehow capable of at least buying new X-wings. The new generation X-wings indicate that at some point, the Rebels must have had enough resources to have upgraded all their fighters to the current spec. This shows that the Rebels were either at status quo with the remaining Imperial forces at the time, or possibly superseded them in power. The name change to Resistance is a bit of a give away in that sense. We can therefore assume that at some point, the Imperials became weak enough that the Rebel Alliance was able to reinstate the Galactic Alliance and become the galaxy's de facto government. This would at least explain the new X-wing fighters, though it doesn't really explain why the Resistance seems to have maintained their generally lower quality equipment for their ground forces.

I think then, it becomes rather impossible to not believe that the new government the Rebels installed seems to have been rather corrupt and incredibly incapable. A micro example seems to have been the entire Skywalker-Solo family line. While Han Solo, Leia and Luke were excellent rebel leaders and war fighters, it appears that in their newfound positions as key figures of government and family, they were incredibly inept. Han, Leia and Luke appear to be directly responsible for the creation of Kylo Ren. There must have been some case of negligence somewhere that resulted in Ben Solo assuming the Kylo Ren identity. Additionally, if Kylo Ren's skills are anything to go by, it is indicative that he likely never completed his Jedi training at all under Luke. Kylo Ren created a defective lightsaber, could not outfight Rey or even Finn, lost to Rey in a mental force duel and despite being able to stop a laser bolt in mid air, could not do anything more than stab Solo in the gut in the most deceptive manner.

I think the most tellingly obvious part of how ineffective the Rebel Alliance government was how ineffective they were at trying to expunge and destroy the Imperial remnant. It cannot be that after knowing how hellishly effective the Empire was at creating new armies and weapons, the fledgling Galactic Alliance simply ignored them. So, there have to be 2 possibilities.

the first possibility is that after Vader and the Emperor's death, a new leader rose from the Imperial Remnants. This could be a Grand Admiral Thrawn kind of figure, in fact, it could be Thrawn. Thrawn could've led a highly effective Civil War, General Lee types of campaigns against the Rebels. This would have kept the 2 sides at status quo sufficiently that the Imperials could have rebuilt all of their lost capability and then allowed them to build the Starkiller base. Of course, this means that the Rebels needed to have several McClellan type leaders at all levels of the Rebel government and armed forces. The rebels would need to have been hamstrung several times to have come to almost zero fighting capability by the time of episode 7. It is also indicative that either Leia inherited the entirety of the current situation or else all other Rebel leaders were highly incapable.

the second possibility is much like the first but has more to do with likely degradation and corruption within the Rebel government. as 30 years is a long time. It is possible that the Skywalkers retired from active duty and allowed the Rebels to install the new government on their own. It is likely that they were able to mostly neutralize the Imperials down to almost nothing and when they thought they were secure enough, ushered in peace. In this case, it is highly probable that corruption and ineptness of the systems allowed a resurgence for the Imperials. The name First Order is most probably indicating that there are other Imperial factions. The strong showing of humans in the forces possibly also show that humans were likely treated unfairly in the Rebel's government enough that a number of them decided to support the Imperials. Therefore, in this scenario, Leia could be forced into the general's position by the sheer necessity of needing to restore some strong leadership in the Resistance.

In either case, the Rebels likely degraded from a fully functional government to a tiny band of resistance fighters due to the complete destruction of any and all fighting forces. The presence of Starkiller base is also another strong mark of the lack of strong Resistance capabilities as a facility that big, should have been easily spotted and destroyed if a fleet of any size was available. This likely shows that the Resistance have been on the losing end of the fight for a long time. We can probably place the starting point of Starkiller base about... 10-20 years before the events of episode 7. We can round it to 15 to make it easier. This is based on the amount of time needed to have built a fully operational Death Star 1. I'd be happy to change this number if i'm found to be off the mark.

Kylo Ren and Snoke have an interesting relationship. It in fact, could be linked to how Kylo Ren came into possession of Darth Vader's helm. My theory is that it likely came from Snoke. Snoke is the main leader of the Imperials at this stage and we are also aware of Ren's highly tumultuous relationship with his parents and perhaps even Luke as well. In either case, we do know that Kylo Ren is seeking power for some reason. Power was the same reason that drove Anakin to the dark side. Ren must have likely been convinced by Snoke that the dark side has power and that he could achieve great things similar to Darth Vader if he became a Sith. Which sort of leads to the question of what on earth did Luke forbid Ren to do? Of course, i suspect Ren must have been desperate enough as well to have overlooked the fact that Vader, despite turning to the dark side, was ultimately killed anyway.

So, who is Snoke? My hunch is that it is the Emperor, disfigured and still alive. As we have seen with Darth Maul, despite being cut in half and falling into a bottomless pit, it is possible to survive. Snoke maybe ugly as sin, but the Emperor falling into a pit and surviving therefore seems highly possible. This is in addition to another fact. If anyone has played the earlier Star Wars Battlefront 2, you would note that you can play as the Emperor in the Death Star map. The Emperor has the uncanny ability to float and hover in mid-air, alongside moving incredibly quickly. So, the Emperor should have been able to survive his fall. But why rename himself to Snoke? I feel the likely reason is that it might have been prudent for the Emperor to have laid low, assumed a new identity and then return to power when it was time. I suppose another question that comes to mind is how was the Emperor able to keep alive all this while? We'll need to go back to the story that turned Anakin to the dark side in episode 3, the Darth Plagueis story. It is highly probable in this case, that the Emperor actually does know how to stop people from dying by using the force and would have used this to extend his life.

Ok, so just to wind up, let's take a final look at Rey, Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. The likely theory so far as to why Han Solo and Chewbacca went back to smuggling work is linked with why Luke decided to take an extended vacation: the realization of their failure with Kylo Ren. We know that there was some kind of amazingly bad crisis with Kylo Ren but that is never expanded upon in episode 7. Fortunately, it isn't that important. Kylo Ren went bad, Han Solo and Chewbacca leave. Skywalker walks out and finally Leia must have been a wreck for a time with C3PO and then eventually got over all of them to assume command of the Resistance. How did Han Solo and Chewbacca lose the Millenium Falcon though? They likely sold it off. It would have traded hands several times until it eventually ended up in Rey's home planet. How do we know Han and Chewie sold it? The apparent desperation for money in episode 7. Han had made several bad deals and was now forced to smuggle a kind of monstrosity. He was also so badly in debt that 2 kinds of space yakuza and irish mafia came after them.

But what about Rey though? I think without a doubt, Rey is a Skywalker. This is hinted a lot throughout her flashbacks and random force powers activating after she gets her mitts on Luke's lightsaber. Apparently, if the theories are to be believed, anything and everything that falls through a bottomless pit will be eventually caught by someone. Which explains how the lightsaber ends up with Maz; she just so happens to have found it and there was only 1 person well known enough in the galaxy at the time with a blue lightsaber, apparently. Aside from that, how did Rey end up in Jakku? I strongly suspect it was because of whoever was Rey's mum. Being of Skywalker lineage and on the losing side of the fight with the resurgent Imperials, it is possible that Rey's mother dumped her on the planet while she herself was being chased down by Imperials; Rey's mum acted as a decoy to allow Rey to live. Or... if the story structure of all the various different Star Wars episodes are to be believed, Rey was given to somebody else to raise. That person died and was of so little significance to Rey that she doesn't remember or care. That person might've also been abusing Rey, which meant Rey would have run off into the desert and ended up in her current predicament. Again, the person dumping Rey on the planet would've been the mum. Why? Because Luke would've been stewing in his own juices on that far off planet that he thinks no one else would reach.

Actually, i also have another idea. Rey would actually be a Skywalker for the simple reason being that the piece of the map that shows where Luke Skywalker is, is also on Jakku. We know this because Poe was on the planet looking for the map piece that someone on Jakku just so happens to have. Luke clearly must have meant for Rey to have the map piece so that she would come to him. There doesn't seem to be any other reason other than strange deus ex machina coincidence for the Rey and the map piece to be on the same planet. Which means that first, Luke is a terrible father and second, he was the one who dumped Rey and the map piece on the same planet.

i still have a lot of questions with regards to the writing of episode 7. for instance, why was the rebel government so weak and ineffective? why did luke do the things he did? but for now, my theories will have to do. all that i can see with episode 7 is that people are trying to say that all of the heroes and their efforts in episode 6 were pointless and that the original trilogy heroes are flawed to quite a large degree when it comes to things that are not fighting an evil empire.

feel free to leave comments. i'll gladly update this entry with more accurate information if you're able to provide them and if they make sense.

what is art...?

a philosophical question people will often ask time and again with quite possibly no true answer. so, i'll add my own thoughts to the growing miasma of this question.

i come from an animation background where art and design needs to work together to create moving images. granted, i'm not exactly an expert on the subject, but i think i see enough of both to at least try and give a slightly different perspective on the matter. let's qualify both art and design, starting with design.

Design is basically creating something according to a plan. It is creating something with a specific goal, objective or result in mind. A design can therefore, fail. It can fail in the sense that it does not achieve the goal it was made in mind with. Design is very factually based, easier to quantify and analyze and it also has a easily documented procedures in mind, for ease of repeating the process. From a visual arts perspective, design blurs with art in terms of the creator's technical skill and the creation of results that are pleasing to the eye.

Art itself is a bit of pothole, but for the sake of argument, i'll put that visual art can be divided into 2 categories: modern art and fine art. Fine art is all about pure technical skill. It is the ability to create artworks that imitate life and nature. Therefore, it can be surmised that fine art's overall objective is to create works that are both visually appealing and is as close to reality as possible. Modern art on the other hand is entirely subjective. More often than not, you'll encounter pieces that seemingly have no rhyme or reason to be put together in the first place. Jackson Pollock's art comes to mind and so does 'the fountain' from Dadaism. Some modern art is visually appealing but others don't look very different from everyday objects or are so abstract that they don't look like art in the first place. In this case, modern art's definition of art is allowing the viewer to come to their own conclusion about the artwork. A literal case of: 'but what does it mean?' Modern art invites people to draw their own interpretations on the art piece. The question then becomes, why create such pieces in the first place?

Coming back to the question of what art is and what it should be, we sort of find ourselves needing to qualify each and every art piece. Why do some people like to draw or paint in a specific way or style? Why are some artists celebrated for the same reasons they are reviled? Why are there certain works of art that people will find revolting but is nevertheless classified as art?

Art is and will always be an expression of creativity. At the end of the day, even a piece of pornography can actually be considered art. Art will usually trump design for the simple reason that for design to work, you need some level of visual appeal and in my mind, visual appeal usually comes from art. I would therefore answer the question of what is art with this: Art is about creating works that are appealing.

Why this though? Because simple answers are the best.

We as humans seem to be programmed to like things that draw our attention. It is why we assign value to inanimate objects like gold. It is why we revere a piece of paper with ink on it and call it a national constitution. we like a particular piece of painting and some of us will get the impulse to buy it immediately.

Listen to a piece of music. Read a piece from Shakespeare. Look at the fine details you can find in any modern day concept artist's piece. Even some pieces of modern art has this kind of appeal. Art in this sense is the ability to please our need for something attractive in our lives. 

But what about design being better than art? Design will usually take a backseat to art, philosophically speaking. i think the best way to look at how art can beat design is from an architectural perspective. Buildings from different time periods will reflect the thoughts and emphasis of that period. You'll note that with most modern buildings, a lot of them are designed to be highly utilitarian; big, boxy and with as much space maximized as possible. Contrast this with buildings from the British Victorian or Gothic era or even the American Art Deco period and you'll figure out which buildings look more appealing in general. Design to a degree lacks the soul found in art because at its core, it is about posing and finding a way to answer the question. As such, design can always be without art but to do so would mean that the design will never be as attractive as one that has a bit of flair and passion in it. Which is why when it comes to visual work, good, attractive designs can sometimes be mistaken for art and vice versa.

So, coming back to the question of art. Art for art's sake is a saying that's sometimes used to try and deflect from this question but i think we all know why we do art for art's sake; it's because we bloody well like things that look attractive to us and we want to create more of it.

go fully automated, because its 2017...

... and other flimsy arguments. this one's going to be a rant and personal thoughts sort of thing. if you feel i'm wrong in some place or my info's out of date, feel free to comment below and let's talk about it. i'm not going to talk about the economic situation that'll be affected too much because i'm sure others have done so already and that i'm not too sure i want to go into it right now.



automate?

the basic premise as of 2015 till now has been that automation is the key to success, a prosperous life and a stress-free living because all your jobs will be taken care of by machines. this also extends to self-driving trucks which on the surface, sounds great, but as with everything there's a catch, i'll get to that one in a bit.

automation has technically been around for awhile now. its probably more obvious in the car and manufacturing business where a degree of monotonous precision is needed. you'd notice that humans work with machines to drill, carve and create different parts of the car and every single component needs to fit just so, otherwise the car will either fall apart or not work at all. so, fast forward to after automation and it'll be pretty much the entire factory is staffed purely by robots with only a single manager who does the paperwork. that's great for businesses. because you usually only need to pay once for the robots and ideally, they'll work until they fall apart which means a working life span that's longer than supposedly fickle and fragile humans. with humans, you need to pay them salary every month and if they are doing work well, they require incentives or bonuses and then if they are doing very well, you need to promote them, get a pension plan, medical, so on so forth, etc. basically, when you consider it, apart from slave labour, humans are very expensive.

companies in seeking to sell their products, will undoubtedly press for automation. you can look at this from 2 perspectives. the first one is the aforementioned, reduction is costs. the second one is that the push for automation would have most likely originated from companies looking to sell robots. i also don't doubt for a moment that the academics who have concluded that automation is a boon for mankind could genuinely mean it but i also know there are those who would shill for corporations, because everyone's got their price i'm sure. and the arguments they put forth actually have merit as well. which makes the matter all the more complicated and grey as opposed to being starkly a black and white benefits-disadvantage argument.

self-propelled eggs

speaking of robots. the self-driving cars and trucks are genuinely weird. it'll eventually come to being that an entire generation will not know how to drive a car... and the only people i see who will benefit from this slightly are parents; because their offspring will not know how to drive the car and leave the house randomly. being facetious aside, i don't see how this is beneficial because driving in some parts of the world is still a necessary life skill. i'm not quite comforted by the fact that the taxis i'll be forced to take in the future will have no steering wheel, will have no driver and potentially, not even a single door handle to open and close the door because everything shall be automated to such a degree that you needn't even think. drones doing amazon e-shopping deliveries, i'm ok with; there shouldn't be anyone living inside the packages that the drone delivers. so, if it fails for some reason, it'll plummet from the sky and hopefully not land on anyone or anything and no one inside the drone will be hurt since there's no one in it. safety and reliability aside, self driving cars are pretty cynical if you consider it. i can appreciate not having to trust a human because... well humans are the worst possible creation in the universe and are completely untrustworthy. so, what makes people think that a robot created by a human will be anymore trustworthy? it does speak volumes about how much we trust our fellow man, but i think there's an even greater callous regard in totally disregarding and taking safety for granted when using an automated vehicle.

i don't like self-driving cars for the reason that it feels out of control. at minimum, there needs to be a fail safe. a human does need to be able to take control of the vehicle should there be fault with the self driving car in some way. frankly, if people hate driving so much, they probably should just car pool or stay home. don't force the idea of a self driving car on others. don't go around saying: "this is the future, all drivers shall not need to drive anymore because its....whatever century it is." it smacks of arrogance and a total disregard for anyone but yourself. we've also no guarantees that self driving cars will be as safe as manufacturers claim it to be. and while we're on the subject.... the manufacturers aren't doing a very good job of selling their products i feel. almost every single self driving car i've seen looks like a bubble and the top speed seems to be slower than that of a segway. it looks like a pod for old people. each concept i've seen doesn't make any sense with regards to the environment or the product; it just looks like an expensive toy. sure, they're all electric battery powered and i'm sure because you're the only passenger in it (obviously, not the driver anymore), it'll be a damn sight more quiet, however, i feel the idea fails to appeal because all the designs are meant for the city. electric cars always have had the issue of recharging. the only company that has gone through hell and high water to address the issues so far is Tesla, which has actually sold me on the concept of an electric car. but the simple fact remains; your new self-driving pod will likely not go faster than 40, 60 if we're being charitable; it will be small and cramped; it will look like its been designed by Apple and will probably lose its novelty after the 4th time it refuses to open the doors for you automatically; it will most likely not be able to go further than your local cafe... alright fine, city borders; finally, it'll be monumentally expensive regardless.... but hey, its eco friendly and you don't have to drive.

i actually can't think of a bigger hazard on the road than a car driving significantly under the speed limit. there's always going to be a guy in the subaru rally car who zips by you at 110 mph and will likely collide with the tree at the bend ahead, but he does get out of your way pretty quickly and despite the rudeness of him flashing his high beam, you at least know he's behind you. an egg shaped pod going at 30 is only going to hold up traffic. because these egg pods are designed for a single passenger, you'd probably get a long line of these things trundling along... slowly. what a nuisance to other road users. the hazard comes from the part that you do need to try and overtake these soft-boiled eggs on wheels or risk dying of old age behind them. if you wish to simulate this experience, put a centenarian in a car, any car, even the egg mobiles and drive behind them. this is supposed to embody driving efficiency?

now, i'll be fair. i do go on and on about the engine and the speed. so, fine. what if the auto makers decide to make a fast egg? wouldn't that be ideal? not really. do bear in mind people like to tinker with their toys, eggs on wheels included. you'd likely end up in a situation where an egg mobile has been modified and could potentially randomly veer into you. the passenger in the egg probably won't even realize he's about to collide into something until its too late. i'll quickly add that the egg mobile may have an AI but i doubt it'll be anymore prepared for weird situations than a human driver. if the car companies can prove to me that their egg mobiles won't be a nuisance on the road, either because they're too slow or have an erratic driving pattern, then i'll drop the argument and concede that they've indeed made the roads... slightly safer.

actually, i'll just throw this one out here for a thought: special lanes for self-driving cars. they just sit on this particular lane, and those of us who either cannot afford the self-driving eggs or actually enjoy driving can drive in peace. discrimination you say? of course it is. because this is much easier than allowing the cars to intermingle and actually cause an accident. pragmatic while keeping both sides happy.

the kicker from the CIA

so, awhile back, wikileaks released a series of documents that were hacked or leaked off the CIA. among the documents were cyber warfare or hacking related articles and reports, indicating that they've manage to take control of cars with computers in them. worse still, it has been rumored that the CIA have....misplaced their hacking tools. that should actually be very shocking to the self-driving egg pod crowd because now, if you buy an egg mobile, it can get hacked while you're inside the car and the car will likely drive into a river or off a building (i don't think an egg mobile can go to where cliffs are). or if you want a more miserable life, it'll probably hack into your facebook and share all your heretically bad selfies to everyone or even doxx you. how wonderful is that?

this should actually be a major concern. especially if terrorists are still around.... i mean its 2017, surely there won't be any terrorists or criminals in the future? this is a force multiplier for them and they'll blend right in because people will be used to seeing ghost cars driving around streets on their own. an enterprising terror organisation can hijack these vehicles and turn them into the usual car bomb and then just direct them into target areas. so.... thanks for automating the jihadi suicide vest i suppose. now, you'll get 72 car bombs for the price of 1 hacker. and there'll be more gun-toting terrorists rather than suicide bombers.

i've no doubt that hacking will just be limited to cars though. remember that everyone who is pushing for automation probably will want the robots in the factory to be hooked up to the internet as well. so, there'll be a good chance an entire factory can be hijacked as well. and here we are then. terrorists can hack into a car factory and turn it into a car bomb factory and people probably won't notice it because they'll be on their smartphones or the smartphone equivalents in the future. industrial sabotage will be quite tricky to deal with, i'm sure.

the take-away?

fully automate everything means losing jobs, losing control, and you'll need to learn how to program and repair robots because this seems to be the future people want. people like new technology and new toys. its not just empathy that people are lacking in these days. it is the ability to try and figure out the potential problems with new technology that is sorely lacking. made up in for in abundance in the ability to believe only the bits they want to hear.

i don't buy into the argument that hackers will always be able to get into something they're not supposed to because they're persistent. the idea i'd rather hear is how you'd go about protecting us from such incidences. we're not actually heading to an era where it'll be the rise of the machines. we're heading to a real life Ghost in the Shell era and that is actually infinitely scarier; everything can be hacked into and we've no way to stop it.

we definitely need a lot more cyber security. but most importantly, is to scrutinize new technology and then try as best as possible to excise the potential for abuse. actually, in that case then, don't be a programmer, go and be a hacker because it sounds like it'll be a lot more profitable.