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 only stupid thing they did was they repeated the robbery on the SAME stretch of road, essentially returning to the same store and robbing a different aisle.

I can give you a description of the bit and my opinion.

A Tom Thumb bit is jointed in the middle and has shanks for leverage. So it has a dual action. When light pressure is used it works on the gums and corners of the mouth. When the reigns are pulled harder the jaw is squeezed while the shanks multiply the force and the center joint folds upward to apply pressure to the roof of the mouth. It's kind of like the volume going from 1 to 11.

Uses:
In theory it should act like a traditional Western bit with the added advantage of rotating the shanks independently...so you can make pressure changes on each side of the mouth independently. In actual practice, it pinches the horses lip in this situation and horses tend to react by tossing their head up or holding their head in an unnaturally high position. With a strong pull it becomes extremely severe. Using it requires a very light hand.

I have used a Tom Thumb successfully with a well trained horse that required no head control but had developed a bad habit of testing his rider by picking up his gate and then bolting. The bit allowed me to ride with no hand but when the horse stretched his neck to take control he ran into the bit. When he relaxed back to the correct position, the pressure was gone. Eventually he didn't want to cause his own discomfort and once he'd broken his bad habits the bit wasn't necessary.

In my opinion, the Tom Thumb appears to check a lot of boxes but in reality it does few of them well. It can work for the right horse, with the right rider, in the right circumstances.

Roy is clearly an inexperienced rider and his personality demands that he assert control, even when he's out of his depth. He's riding a gaited horse (I think it's a Tennessee Walker but my daughter disagrees) and he seems to be trying to make it move like a Quarter Horse. My guess is he's trying to ride in like a cowboy but the horse naturally moves like pretty princess horse. Chaos ensues.

I hope that makes sense. I tried to avoid horse-people terms. If something's unclear or if anyone feels I'm wrong, then I welcome comments.

The people who wrote the Bible thought the earth was flat,with a dome over it. The flat earthers models show this . In the Bible ,the firmament,is a dome, stretched over the earth. With water above and below it. Reread Genesis,and replace the word firmament,with dome.

It doesn't really explain WHY they would believe such things outside they saw lots of YouTube videos. What would cause a person to reject known science that is over 2,000 years old, which was based on super simple observations? I've seen some people blame the Bible, but you'd really have to stretch things to get to the Bible saying it was flat (it makes reference to the four corners, but that's it), unlike using the Bible to claim the universe is 6,000 years old, and the Earth being the center of the universe, both of which it supports directly. So at least, in this case, we can't blame the Bible, though I'd be interested in how many of these people believe the universe is 6,000 years old and the center of the universe, as I'd expect a high correlation. Even rejecting human-caused climate change makes more sense than accepting the flat earth. It just so far beyond stupid to accept it that I can't wrap my head around it.

Interesting stuff, I don't agree with the 'bigger isn't necessarily better' conclusion he came to. Sauropods lasted a good 150 million years, and it took a massive worldwide external extinction event like an asteroid strike to take them out.

Humans have been around in some form for a fair bit less than 200,000 years. Stretching that to apes you can get to 10 million at a push. Even the early primates probably wouldn't have had their break if it weren't for that extinction event a mere 65 million years back.

Come back to me in 3 million generations and I'll ceded the point.

What this company (snapperstech.com) did is put together an upgraded control "rig" to manipulate facial expressions, taking into account muscle limits and interactions, skin elasticity, etc.

A little more info in the video's YT desc :
-Adaptive rig: which allows combining any number of expressions using optimized list of blendshapes.
-Real facial muscles constraints: the advanced rig logic simulates real facial muscles constraints.
-Advanced skin shader (for Maya and Unreal): holds up to 16 wrinkles maps and 16 dynamic diffuse maps with micro details and pores stretching.
-Easy to manipulate using facial controllers and/or GUI.
-Compatible with all game engines and animation packages.
-Smooth transition between all the expressions.
-Adjustment layer: freeform manipulation of multiple regions of the face to create unlimited variations of the same expression.

The real-time rendering part is achieved by the Unreal engine itself. The final rendering performance still relies mainly on the hardware used.

what you saw was a mesh with a skin shader rendering in real-time so that's how fast it renders. didn't look terribly hi-res, the real advancement here is the quality of the skin shader(for realtime) and the fidelity of the facial rig, having proper face target shapes all blending together to get complex movements with skin compression/stretching/wrinkling at this level have historically been out of reach for anything but pre-rendered cgi.

They can probably drop libraries of mocap data on this with face markers that match those manipulation points you see in the video, and animators can use them to animate, or clean up/change the motion capture data.

and the skin textures/pore detail/face model are not a technological achievement as much as the work of a skilled artist, and the deformations are the result of someone who really knows their anatomy.

since there is no animation in this video, no performance, it's hard to judge how realistic it feels. the real trick is always seeing it animated.

Prepare for the collapse of part of the atmosphere? What, by moving? Or stretching to stay limber enough to kiss your own ass goodbye? Pray tell.

Rewatch the video, when it starts the light is green.

-The time on the video is 1 second in when the light turns yellow
-His speed at that time is 54km/h, default speed limit in Canada in urban centers is 50km/h but plenty of stretches are 60km/h, decent odds his 5k under versus over.
-The time on the video when his front wheel hits the stop line is 3 seconds.


From that we can say the time from the light turning yellow, to him reaching the point he needed to stop was 2 seconds. At 50km/h, lets work out the distance. 50 km/h works out to 13.9m/s, so the moment the light went yellow he was maybe 28metres from the stop line.

Australian government says that dry road stopping distance for a family car at 50km is 35m. Now, sometimes a bike can perform better braking, sometimes it can perform worse, but it doesn't seem that it's obvious a biker should be able to stop in 28m the instant a light goes yellow, seems that passing through is not only prudent, but quite likely the only option that physics allows.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/driving-safely/stopping-distances/graph

Those are Canadair CL-415 water bombers.....

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=199266

A CL-415 amphibious aircraft sustained damage during a water takeoff.
Two CL-415 were lifting off the surface of a lake when one of the aircraft contacted a mast of a barge with the left hand wing, according to a video posted on YouTube.
The aircraft reportedly returned to land.

For the lieutenant colonel Bernier from the Office Manager communication of the direction of the Sécurité Civile : " The wing of the Fire-fighting plane is damaged, it will be unavailable for several weeks, there were projections on two barges, fortunately without making of wounded person.
They are experimented and confirmed pilots who knew well the stretch of water. They managed to fly up to the base of Nîmes. The pilot and the co-pilot are shocked, they were suspended as a protective measure and are going to be examined by a specialized doctor who has to make sure that they are in capacity to re-fly. "

Yeah, I thought it was a HUGE stretch... Interesting to be sure, but I don't think it works really as the best Christian film of all time. Upvote anyhow, because it's a great movie, and interesting idea.

That's the face I make when I get off a long haul flight and can finally stretch out.

@bobknight33 @newtboy

Leaving out key information, to the point that what's being said could be easily misunderstood, is a form of dishonesty.

But, Bob, I know we don't talk much, that's mostly because I don't like you. This kind of thing is exactly why I feel this way though.

Let's break down the first few of this commercial...errr propaganda piece.

"Despite our political differences, Russia and the United States have maintained friendly relations since the foundation of our great nation."
--------
Depends heavily on your definition of "friendly." If by friendly, you mean "almost nuking each other over long stretches of time," yeah sure, we're friendly.
------------------

"In fact, Russia and America have worked together, throughout history, to defeat our common enemies."
-------
Ehhh... we sort of worked independently against the same people out of individualized interests, not because we like each other. The video cites Russia "ignoring British requests for naval support during the American Revolutionary War;" except Catherine II basically manipulated the colonists into turning their backs on Britain to suit her own purposes and weakening the countries by splitting them in two.

This video cites the Ghent Treaty, but that was only struck after Napolean had already taken Moscow and an emboldened Russia started the land grab that led to the Crimean War. While getting their commie shits kicked in and losing the land they tried to take and then some, they were worried about not being compensated for American Russia, aka Alaska. So a few years after that, they sold it to the US for a cool $7 mill. (cold joke, get it?)

In short, even if we did get along with each other, it was just barely. Regardless, that was a different country that just happens to be occupying the same land now.

---------

But, you know, nevermind all that. Because that's not what you wanted to debate, was it? (see quote)

So I'll say this: Yesterday, Donald Trump got into a twitter war with the mayor of London, whose city just suffered a terror attack. That's the level of critique and disregard for decorum he has while doing it.

He'll cofefe the shit out of the pope and spit in NATO's face.

AND YETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Nothing but positivity for Russia.

Last I remember, you were a fairly large promoter of Hillary's email dumps. Yeah, one of us is drinkin the bad kool-aid alright.

Let's end the suspense. Why not use something less-abstract to rest your laurels on? Hmmm...if only there were something...like...hmmm...something more...hmmm... concrete......hmmmm not like transparent like a fence...fence=fake news (see first presidential address)...hmm if only there were some kind of symbol for just how big of a fucking liar this asshole is....hmmmm ghad why can't i think of this...URGh! I feel like I'm banging my head against....hmmm.

Ah well.

p.s. Right here buddy: http://bit.ly/2rNSNsw

Yes, and she does "come here", then he lets her get on the bike without telling her not to. It didn't look like an escape attempt to me, but may have to them. That's not the point, the point is they didn't tell her to stay there when she turned around and went back "here". It's clear to me that her problem is being touched by strangers, and had they simply told her to sit, no one would have had to touch her, and things would not have escalated.

Detained is not under arrest, so you can't be charged with resisting detainment. Ignoring the police is totally fine until they give a lawful command....one that doesn't end with "OK?".

Again, you're assuming she was trying to flee and not just being an OCD (ADD?) teenager trying to avoid being touched. That's how she appears to me, spoiled, trouble, disrespectful, yes, but also scared, troubled, confused, and under assault.

I do think they should stop her from fleeing, (if that's what she was trying to do) I just think they should start with "sit down" or "stay right there" before manhandling a child that's just been in an accident, especially if the contention is they are "detaining" her because she might need medical treatment. "Come here" is a command satisfied when she returns "there", it does not command her to stay anywhere, no matter how logical it is to infer that.

As a citizen, you do have the right to arrest her (which they should have done if they thought she was fleeing the scene, not just "detained" her) but you had better be able to totally justify any force you use to hold her...as should the police. The force used must be reasonable, minimal, only what's required to prevent escape, and on par with the crime she's being detained for. They might have 1 out of 4 covered in part if they stretch it.

My issue is far more about the pepper spraying her for not moving her foot rather than the manhandling, but I do think both were wrong and more about disrespect and power trips than trying to calmly handle the accident. ONce she was handcuffed and in the car, she wasn't escaping anything, nor was she a threat to anyone. The pepper spray was totally out of line. The rest is just questionable to me and absolutely not how you make the community support you, but probably not illegal.