Van Gogh is my favorite painter. I think I had seen this painting before but definitely didn't understand how that all interplayed

I just now saw this. My yahoo email account sometimes disappears things on me. I lost another email about the same time.

I absolutely agree with everything you say. Biology is biology. There are differences. Sex is in the workplace, of course, and women bring it there.

I can agree with all these things, and still be creeped out by the indulgence, the wallowing, of only hiring very attractive women.

There is a long history of that in America, and it was creepy then, too. Stewardesses and what they were subjected to in the workplace is a great example. They would lose their -- THEIR WORK -- if they gained five pounds, is an example of really inappropriate use of a woman's appearance as a job qualification. These people are responsible for the safety of the passengers if a tragedy strikes. I love reading stories about how women are heroes and professional when an accident happens.

A shooting range is not a strip club. Wanting to be surrounded by women in your business who COULD work in a strip club is creepy.

Creepy really isn't the right word. It is shorthand for a complex interplay of gender roles and abuses and complicity that is endemic in our culture. I just like the way it feels in my mouth -- I found that Japanese word for it that perfectly explains my pleasure in using it. I am still pleased to know that word exists.

Gitaigo: Onomatopoeia that describes states of being, not sounds.

Creepy perfectly feels like my state of being around this video.

We are all biological beings who like to look at pretty people. Tall men make more money. Attractive people of both genders make more money. We will never be free from those responses.

But lets keep it unconscious, shall we? Let us work to be better human beings than people who reduce ourselves to walking genitalia looking for constant stimulation.

The rest of your points... yeah. I'm right with you. I am not someone who criticizes men for "looking." I find myself looking and I'm pretty firmly on the hetero side of things.

It came up the other day on a hike through the woods. A woman passed me wearing some sort of body hugging stretch pants. There was natural jiggling from her movements, which caught my eye. I found myself staring, I became aware of how perfectly proportioned she was, and how the rest of her was lovely in every aspect (I had seen her a few moments before, walking in a different direction.) I almost called out to my friends -- my god, that is the most beautiful woman. All triggered by a chance glance at an objectively beautiful rear-end.

Biology. It happens. I have no problem with it.

And those shooting range owners want to stimulate that reaction in the workplace, 100% of the time. And that, my friend, is creepy.

The content of the video wasn't bad, but the tagline / title they chose gives a very faulty perception, I think.

I guess "how accurately can the skill of players on a team relative to players on competing teams predict their aggregate regular season success in various sports" doesn't roll off the tongue quite so easily.

I love hockey largely because a great team can be good at everything OR specialize in being offensively skilled / big and mean / fast and opportunistic / defensive system minded / whatever. Take a team loaded with extremely skilled superstars and put them up against a team of low-skill bruisers that play tough but legal and work well as a unit, and the pure skill team can easily lose. Makes for fascinating interplay between philosophies / rosters / coaching schemes.

Read this story - http://gizmodo.com/6-500-silk-worms-spin-one-heck-of-a-cloud-510908939
Silk Pavilion consists of 26 silk polygons which act as the structure of the piece. Made of silk thread laid by a Computer-Numerically Controlled (CNC) machine, the polygons were a template on which to place 6,500 silkworms which produced natural, unprocessed silk patches. The silkworms worked until the whole structure had been covered.

The CNC used an algorithm that had analyzed the patterns in worm-generated patches of silk, and then produced the first level of structure. The silkworms themselves created the second level, working as a sort of natural 3D printer. This gets to the heart of the piece as an interplay between natural and digital construction. The next trend in interior design should definitely be loosing thousands of silk worms on your house and letting them redecorate.

>> ^bmacs27:

@kceaton1
It isn't clear that the cause is entirely genetic. There is strong evidence that environmental factors (e.g. in utero hormone exposure) seem to play a role. I think it's safest to say it is somehow neurological in nature, however all neurological development is an extremely complicated interplay of environment and genetic predispositions. The fact is we don't understand the neurological underpinnings of attraction well enough to say how exactly it develops, and therefore what factors contribute.
There is almost certainly a genetic component however.


Well I know this; there is a certain amount of wiggle room for sure otherwise we wouldn't have fetishes galore (that would be your psychology/brain/sub-conscious screwing up your natural instincts). Those can't ALL be necessarily genetic in nature. Yes, I understand the hormone issue, but to me that is an entirely separate subject that doesn't really apply. BUT, it is terribly interesting. But, certain types of visual cortex information and recognition has to start getting built into the system that is linked to your natural predisposition for sexual reproduction--some of that HAS TO happen even while you're In Utero and of course in adolescence. Now what all turns on and changes here is a slight mystery and MAY determine your sexuality, but it was determined a long time ago via genetics when the event would turn on and what would turn on. If it can change, this doesn't matter as it will still fire on cure, it's just that they have to figure it out first. Same thing goes for gender identity disorder. Same issues to some extent, but some things have been even more~enhanced.

It's what you find pleasing to the eye, these things start getting encoded and built into the brain as soon as the brain is being created (atleast the instinctual element, babies like symmetry and hate non-symmetry, usually, that type of encoding). But you're right on the other stuff, I just meant they "may" have something to worry about in the "testing" department in the future; were the U.S. becomes the China of gay children `In Utero`, if you know what I mean--could get ugly and laws may need to be passed...

Hopefully I didn't make things more confusing.
This is PART, JUST PART of the Pandora's Box a test would bring about...

@kceaton1

It isn't clear that the cause is entirely genetic. There is strong evidence that environmental factors (e.g. in utero hormone exposure) seem to play a role. I think it's safest to say it is somehow neurological in nature, however all neurological development is an extremely complicated interplay of environment and genetic predispositions. The fact is we don't understand the neurological underpinnings of attraction well enough to say how exactly it develops, and therefore what factors contribute.

There is almost certainly a genetic component however.

Oh memories... I actually invested money in Interplay when I got my first real job and had money to burn... then they tanked and so did the stock.

>> ^entr0py:

It always baffles me how Yahtzee often chooses to play the console versions of games when there is a PC version available the same day. That would have taken care of the gripes about auto targeting and mashing the attack button. And since the control is so much better, it does allow you to concentrate on tactics and positioning. I guess maybe he knows most viewers will be playing on consoles as well, and wants to share their pain.
Ultimately I thought the game was worthwhile because it's about 70% of what you'd expect form a Bioware game, and that's still better than most RPGs. Disappointing, but an enjoyable sort of disappointment.


I'm surprised you say that.

I felt that Dragon Age Origins was not quite there, but the best RPG released since baldur's gate/fallout (proper fallout, not oblivion wasteland fallout) days. I was very disappointed by Dragon Age 2. Felt completely rushed. If they had released more of the same (same engine) then i'd have accepted that and been happy to have it. If they improved on it, i'd be impressed. Instead, it seems they rushed out something which went counter to the brilliant setup they made for themselves with Origins.

I felt that Dragon Age Origins was 200% of what i'd expect from a "modern bioware" game, which made the game enjoyable. I felt that Dragon Age 2 was about what i'd expect from a modern bioware game, which is why i didn't play it past about 15 minutes.

By modern bioware, i mean past about 2005. Sorry, i'm not a console player, i have much higher standards and i do not accept mass effect as a good rpg. I'm a bit snooty about my rpgs, you can blame that on being spoiled by an extremely high standard of bioware/interplay rpgs when i was a kid.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

5 quid says the game will be full of the same lame religious crap that ruined the last two seasons of the show. Spoiler alert: God did it.


Ya, that wouldn't of even been bad if they did it cleverly. I don't know how they were able to take killer robots that wipe out humanity, and turn them into such pussies. The first 2 seasons are legendary television, the third season starts out strong, but, to me, is the end of what made BSG great. From there, you go to episodic non-sense with no real since of overall story telling. I mean, the first 2 seasons had all sorts of neat religious interplay; was the 9 in his head an angel, what's the deal with the cylon faith, what's the deal with cobal and earth? They manage to drop the ball on nearly every question, and by drop the ball, I mean answer the question in such a trite way as to ruin all the tension built up over the course of years.

Ahhh rant over...I try and pretend that seasons 1-2 are the only ones that happened then the show got canceled. I am conformable with this state of denial.

while the movie was fantastic and shone the light on how a persons perspective can change in the face of great danger and hardship.the interplay between father and son in this bleak and barren world is worth watching the movie alone but THE BOOK is soooooo much better.

There is an interplay between the absolute morality found in the Bible (certainly the Bible's writings haven't changed since it was first set down into a codex) and society is where you find your "evolution of morality", but it does not mean that all morality is flexible, and without basis.

I think you have a very warped view of morality. First of all, the bible is NOT a source of "absolute morality" and not even a "basis" for morality.

The point I was trying to make, that point you completely miss, is that our morality is not a "divine gift", but that doesnt have to mean that it is completely arbitrary. You seem to be locked into the view similar to that of creationists who deny our relatedness to other primates because they think it undermines our "special place in creation" as humans. In your view, I gather, is one where there is an "absolute morality" that God has cleverly hidden among the numerous orders of genocide and the warnings of what will happen to Thought-Criminals who dare to question their leader...

I dont think morality works like that at all, I believe it is, like religion and the various gods, entirely man-made, and that it is an evolving, social, abstract construct, but that, like our relatedness to other animals, doesnt have to diminish it or undermine it. This is also the only thing that can explain how morality changes so radically over time and space. How can a view that morality is somehow based on the bible explain anything, when in fact most of the rules in the bible are now considered to be directly immoral, and the bible also omits some of the most important laws we have (such as a ban on slavery, for example)

Isnt it about 10000 times more likely that Christianity is entirely man-made, and that the "Our-book-is-REALLY-special" feeling that Christians have in common with every other religion ever invented is just good old bias? Ask any Muslim, Scientologist or Buddhist as many times as you'd like, they'll all have the same kind of answers: No, we are different from every other religion, see?

Basically, yes, there is a message you can take home from Jesus, and yes, some of those ideas, (such as the emphasis on forgiveness) are relatively rare in other religions, and sure, this is another thing that has helped shape morality over the last 2000 years, but it is by no means the only contributing factor, and No, the bible is not THE source of absolute morality, nor the foundation upon which all morality is based. such claims are ridiculous in light of what we know about history and morality

Not totally unique, no. But not very similar to anything that came before it, even Judaism (see for example the Expounding of the Law).

There is an interplay between the absolute morality found in the Bible (certainly the Bible's writings haven't changed since it was first set down into a codex) and society is where you find your "evolution of morality", but it does not mean that all morality is flexible, and without basis. The Bible is what it is, and different cultures and times have interacted with it in different ways.

I'm writing from a history workshop right now, talking about how during the progressive era, the Social Gospel message was an interplay between Progressivism and Christianity, with the core message being, "What would Jesus do if he ran a factory? Would he exploit his workers or charge an exorbinant price?" Likewise, it's no coincidence abolitionists were devoted Christians who were interpreting the doctrine of Universal Charity to apply to the condition of slavery. My lord, man, you think it was a secular movement? Read John Brown's letters some time: http://www.familytales.org/results.php?tla=job

Or when Jesuits first entered China, they preached to them by saying that their pre-existing beliefs about the Lord of Heaven was like the idea of Jesus, so with a few changes to their beliefs, they could easily become Christians.

A delightful interplay.

For me, DS9 was the best: great character arcs, especially for Dukat, Kira, Sisko, and Odo. Lots of Fighting In Space with the Defiant. The Bajorans were an intriguing culture to find out about, but the show never came down on the side of supernatural explanations for their gods and spiritual beliefs (Battlestar Galactica take note). And there was a huge, epic story with the Dominion War that stretched and developed through the whole series, whereas we were lucky if TNG had a story spread across two episodes. Not to mention the terrific production design and rich interplay between the characters. The characters never seemed to connect in TNG: everyone was too nice to each other and hardly ever argued unless they were under the influence of an Alien Arguing Virus or something. Plus TNG's sets were revolting and there was a frigging PSYCHIC PSYCHOTHERAPIST on the BRIDGE, for crying out loud. How unrealistic, how eighties, is that?

Voyager was little more than "The Seven Of Nine Show". Too many episodes focussed on this boring waste of narrative space. Being Borg, Seven should have been an interesting and unique character, but she was basically a Vulcan with a bit of plastic stuck around her eye. And they already had a Vulcan on board! Oh, and don't get me started on Neelix. More annoying than a tribble, the character of Neelix alone should have been enough to get the show cancelled after its first season. The appalling time-travel-paradox finale was baloney, and Janeway's voice was super-annoying.

Enterprise was another wasted opportunity, though I did like Scott Bakula. And as for TOS, I suppose I'm just the wrong generation to really enjoy it. I appreciate it for the groundwork, but it's not really the same standard as the later series.

Oh, and DS9 only had one episode with bloody Q in it, which is a good thing.

Aaaand relax.

I've never done this with just an ink drop, but I wonder if there is some kind of interplay between the shape of the fountain pen's tip and perhaps the shape of the glass itself.

Still and interesting event.