Podcast stuff - The Indie & Mojo Show Ep 13

Yes, I am taking over the podcast world.

In addition to our bi-weekly podcast (I'll be doing a post about this week's episode tomorrow, probably), I also appeared on the latest episode of the Indie & Mojo show, Episode 13. Some of you know that I do video game blogs and am part of the community over at Game Informer. The site has spawned many community podcasts from various members, and one of them (one of the ones I listen to religiously now, and that was even before they asked me to be on) is the Indie & Mojo show. It's two guys talking about video games and Game Informer and other pop culture type stuff.

You can listen to the episode in the player below, or go to the site and download it if you want to take it with you.

We talk Uncharted 3, Modern Warfare 3, how people don't read emails, and the controversy over review scores (which is mainly caused by people paying more attention to scores than to the reviews themselves), and lots more.

Just one thing I would like to add before you listen to it. Unfortunately, I made my first mistake less than 2 minutes into the podcast. When I say that we script our intros for Down the Hall because they "would sound terrible otherwise," I should have added that this is totally because of me and my inability to ad-lib something like that. I'm sure Jenny could do it easily. In fact, I know she can, because we tried it, and my inability to do it is why we script it.

That was supposed to be self-deprecating, but I left off that part so it sounded like I was dissing both of us. So, apologies, Jenny!

And I can't believe I talked about our podcast but neglected to say the name. It's "Down the Hall" (I really need to work on this advertising thing). You all know that, of course.

Anyway, it was a fun show to do, and I hope it sounds that way too.

Book Review - The Burning Season (CSI) - by Jeff Mariotte

I'm a big CSI fan (Las Vegas version only), though I haven't actually watched much of the last season yet (not to mention this season). What can I say? I'm behind.

The great thing about novels is that you can get inside the characters' heads, which you can't always do on a television series. The bad thing about tie-in novels is that they can't make any major changes or revelations to the characters, as they have to leave that to the television show.

CSI novels can be hit or miss in that respect, but Jeff Mariotte's The Burning Season is actually pretty good for that. The problem is almost everywhere else, though the stories (there are three) Mariotte tells are actually kind of interesting.

My review of the book is now up on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:

"Three separate crimes need to be solved by the intrepid Las Vegas nightshift CSIs. A fire in a small resort town of Mount Charleston, near Las Vegas, results in almost the entire subdivision being burned to the ground, as well as the deaths of six firefighters. There is the attempted roadside bombing of the head of a major cable news network[Dennis Daniels], a network beset by large protests outside of the building and numerous death threats against the owner. Finally, a dog has taken a severed hand underneath the front porch of a suburban home. Retrieving the hand will lead Ray Langston into the dark underbelly of the illegal immigrant community."

As you can see, the book is rather political. The problem is that Mariotte tries so hard to not offend anyone that he makes the story almost unbelievable. I'm sorry, but "moderates" do not inspire the outrage that Mariotte shows in this novel. Not to mention the fact that Daniels' views are fairly left of center, though not too extreme, so even that attempt at "even-handedness" isn't that effective. The ostensible "bad guys" are two right-wing groups: one that's just Conservative and one that's very extreme.

I'll let you read the rest of the review to get my thoughts on the book itself. It's definitely a decent CSI book, and if you agree with the politics, it might even be more so for you. You won't go wrong reading this one if you're a CSI fan, but there are much better ones out there (like Mariotte's own Brass in Pocket)

Show more skin, seem less intelligent. Q.E.D?

It's "common knowledge" that if you're known mainly for showing off your skin, you must be an idiot, right? When all you're doing is appealing to man's baser instincts, that must mean your looks are the only avenue by which you can succeed in life.

Of course, anybody who can actually form a rational thought knows that this isn't true. But is that perception still there? If you see an attractive woman showing off as much skin as possible (or even an attractive man), what's the first thing that crosses your mind? Besides your wife's withering glare if you happen to be with her?

Of course, with a question this important, you know there's been a recent study about it, this one by researchers at the University of Maryland. And you know that the UK Daily Mail has reported on it. Yes, the study shows that the more flesh you bare, the less others regard you as intelligent. This applied to both men and women in the study (unfortunately, the burning question of whether this applies to sexy bloggers was *not* answered in this study).

(I think this guy has a brain - ladies, would you like to try and find out?

The "bang your head on the table because it's so obvious" quote of the article:

"Research suggests that when men see a woman wearing very little they focus on her body and less on her mind." Gee, you think? Maybe if she puts glasses on with that bikini, it would be different?

I was all set to insult and mock this article, and this study, but then I read it a bit further, and I've decided that I won't necessarily be doing that.

Or at least I won't be doing just that.

According to the study, humans have two different aspects of the mind: "agency" and "experience." "Agency is the capacity to act, plan and exert self-control, while experience is the capacity to feel pain, pleasure and emotions." The more skin you show, the more people perceive you as being on the "experience" side of the scale rather than the "agency." In other words, you feel that you are extremely hot but you can't do anything about it (Ok, I'm paraphrasing).

The researchers claim that this changes our view of objectification, because people without clothes are just seen as another part of the mind. I can see the new pick-up lines now: "Hey babe, I don't see you as a sexual object. I'm just thinking of your experience" (maybe they could have used a different word for that?).

So is this true, or are these just wussy words to justify what we already know to be true? When people see an attractive person in front of them with very little clothing on, they tend to focus on the physical aspect of that person rather than the mental. I'm not saying that your mind doesn't move on to other things after that first thought, of course, though the abundance of skin may make it hard to concentrate on anything else.

Another thing in this study is that it doesn't seem to take into account the setting. If you go to the beach, do you look around you and think "wow, what a bunch of dolts? Um, I mean, Experiencers?" No, of course not. The study does mention clothing and the workplace, though.

"It translated that wearing little clothes in an environment like the office can have a negative impact because it can imply a lack of competence and leadership.

Professor Gray said: 'Those who are characterised in terms of their bodies to be seen as more reactive and emotional, traits that may also serve to work against career advancement.'"

Is that true? I suppose it may be, though I would think the person's actual demonstrated competence would have more to say about that, unless perhaps we're talking about an environment where we're mostly cogs in a machine and promotion is based more on perception than actual ability. Also, I'm not an attractive woman wearing skimpy outfits to the office (at least not usually), so maybe I'm ill-suited to make that conclusion.

Ultimately, this study seems to be on the "did our tax money go to this obvious question?" type of study. While I do believe the "agency/experience" dichotomy of the mind is somewhat interesting, the study just seems to confirm what we already know. Not that attractive people are dumb. But that it may not be the best idea to wear a bikini to the office.

At least not on your first day.

The study did see an upside to wearing little clothing (besides being cool in the Summer): you appear to be more vulnerable and sensitive.

"Professor Gray said: 'Others appear to be less inclined to harm people with bare skin and more inclined to protect them.

'In one experiment, people viewing male subjects with their shirts off were less inclined to give those subjects uncomfortable electric shocks than when the men had their shirts on.'"

All right, that's it. No more shirts to the office. I've had way too many shocks already.

Podcast Stuff - Ep 22 of Down the Hall (Radio EPLT)

Did you like watching films in class when you were in school? They were the highlight of my day, whether it was because the movie was interesting or because it gave me time to sleep.

In this episode of Down the Hall (nicely titled "Duck and Cover," for those of you who remember growing up with those civil defense films), Jenny and I talk about media studies in K-12 education. It's a pretty lively discussion with lots of laughs and memories, as well as talking about the state of media studies in today's schools.

Also, Jenny talks to Teresa Milden, from the Vancouver School Board, about Gifted Education. There's some great information in there, and it's not just Vancouver-specific.

This episode also forced me to finally watch the Walking Dead, to prepare for the coming Zombie Apocalypse. Thanks, Jen.

Take a listen and let us know what you think!

And don't forget to head on over to Facebook and "like" us! We need to be liked.

Book Review - The Abacus & the Cross by Nancy Marie Brown

I'm always a sucker for History books regarding a period I know little to nothing about. My "to read" list of books is so long, however, that I don't actively seek them out that often. I'd be overloaded.

That's one cool thing about reviewing for Curled Up With a Good Book. The editor gets books from publishers and has a list of these books available for reviewers. If I happen to find an interesting-sounding book on the list that covers a period I'm interested in, I snap it up.

It can make for a tall "to read" pile, though.

The latest example of a successful find using this method is Nancy Marie Brown's The Abacus and the Cross: The Story of the Pope Who Brought the Light of Science to the Dark Ages (believe me, I won't be typing all of that again). It's a great history of a period that I know nothing about. It's also a scientific history, and a biography of a man named Gerbert who later became Pope Sylvester II. All rolled into one! How can you go wrong with that?

Brown is a science author, but she's changed hats slightly to take on a historical biography. It's still very heavily-oriented toward the Math, though. Enough so that it might turn you off. Sticking with it bears fruit, though, if you're interested in the time period right around 1000 AD.

She also manages to put some historical myths to rest as well.

From my reviewon Curled Up:

"First thing, she puts to rest the common impression that people throughout the Christian world mortally feared the coming of the year 1000 as the time when Christ would return and the Apocalypse would ensue. While some feared that, the impression that this was widespread does not appear to be true. She opens the book discussing this; instead of dealing with this coming calamity, Pope Sylvester is instead writing a letter about the best method of finding the area of a triangle.

In writing Gerbert's biography, Brown also attempts to dispel the notion that the Dark Ages were completely overrun by superstition and ignorance. Religious institutions housed scholars who explored the world of mathematics and science, including Gerbert's creation of the abacus. There were interactions between the Islamic and Christian worlds, so Gerbert and others were exposed to many ancient works of mathematics and science housed in Baghdad and other repositories."

The book is a solid biography and well worth reading for those so inclined.

Let me know what you think!

(Nobody ever lets me know what they think...)

Is the word "lurk" a Bad Thing?

What do you think of when you hear the word "lurk?" Does it give you the willies as you imagine some dark stranger hiding out in your house? Or do you think of somebody who reads, but doesn't post, to a discussion forum? People who read discussion forums but don't bother to contribute to them are called "lurkers."

Merriam-Webster actually has both definitions.

Yesterday I was in a discussion where somebody used the term "lurker" to mean the latter, to be a member of a site but not actually contribute to it, at least right away. He said that she would be "lurking" on the site. It made a couple of the women in the discussion uncomfortable, and a mini-discussion about the word started. I came out and said that, having been on the Internet almost since its inception, the word "lurker" doesn't mean anything bad to me, unless the context of that use demands it, of course. If somebody tells me that an evil-looking guy is hanging around the school lurking in the corner, then obviously that's bad.

But just the word itself? Especially used in the context which it's been used for the Internet for years?

It just struck me as odd.

I was even told by one of the women that "if you were a woman, you'd understand."

That may be, but I don't think so. Who knows? Maybe I would.

So I'd like to throw this out there to all of you.

Is the word "lurking" a bad thing, in and of itself? With all context removed? (Even though I think the context was plain anyway)

Now, if you've never heard of the Internet "lurking" definition, then your opinion may be skewed. I'd still like to hear your viewpoint, though.

It's weird how we can be completely blind-sided sometimes, discovering the weird permutations of something that we've been doing or saying for years.

(edited to clarify that I'm mainly talking about the *word* "lurk," not the act of lurking in general. Sorry for the confusion!)

Book Review - Battle for the City of the Dead

There are already tons of books out there about the US presence in Iraq, from the war to what happened after the invasion was successful. I'm sure there will be many more.

Many of them are either for or against the invasion, though there are some books that are just accounts of a certain situation there.

Those are the most enjoyable, I think.

I just read and reviewed on of those books, Dick Camp's Battle for the City of the Dead. It tells the story of the month-long battle with the Sadr Militia in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, in August 2004. There are no politics in this book whatsoever. The closest it comes is frustration with the rules of engagement, when Militia snipers were using mosques as sniper points because they knew the Americans couldn't fire back out of respect for religious sensibilities.

This is a straightforward "what happened, day to day" account of the battle, and it's a marvelous book.

My review's now up on Curled Up With a Good Book.

"In 2004, the Iraqi government was in disarray. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the US military were at odds about how to end the violence partially caused by the disbanding of the Iraqi army after the end of the invasion. Disgruntled ex-soldiers were looking for ways to strike back, and religious leaders clamored for resistance to the "occupation force." Muqtada al-Sadr used this chaos to make a power play from his Najaf base, a holy Shiite city with the Golden Dome mosque and massive, ancient cemetery. The US military was brought in to shut him down."

Camp is a retired Marine, so his respect for all of those involved in the battle comes through greatly.

I'll let you read the review for the rest, but all I can say is that if you have any interest in the military happenings in Iraq, then this is a great book for you.

Check out the review, and let me know what you think.