This may seem surprising, but it was only recently that I finally saw Sidney Crosby's gold-medal-winning goal from 2010. See, I was so sick of the jingoistic hype about Canada's Olympics that I skipped the final.
So why would I assume that I would have seen a goal in a game that I purposely avoided? Well, for a person interested in sports, you would think I'd have seen such a momentous play several times over the course of a few years. I've seen the Paul Henderson goal several times as parts of retrospectives and top-ten lists. Heck, a sports fan probably sees that clip of a guy running through the outfield wall at least once a year.
But the Crosby goal is absent in the sports-highlight-osphere. Yes, the copyright protection on that telecast is so strong that the closest we get is stills of Crosby's celebration after the goal.
On the one hand, I'm glad that the immovable object of Olympic copyright protected me from the irresistible force of Canada's hockey ego. But on the other, this was a big moment that meant a lot to Canadians, but they can't relive it. And what is this legal taboo for? I guess to help CTV sell Olympic DVDs. And also to preserve the value of selling the rights to anyone willing to pony up. In this case, that would be Air Canada, which is why I first saw one of the most celebrated moments in Canadian sport as part of a commercial.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Don't Worry, Ignorant Americans, I Got Your Back
You may have seen a report out about Americans' knowledge of science. It's been reported with headlines like:
After reading that, is "Americans are idiots" really the first thing that comes to mind? The South Koreans were the only ones to beat the Americans by any significant amount. The U.S. did better than the Japanese on almost every question (not the evolution one, of course.) And the Europeans were the worst on the signature astronomy question. Their number even came out at a nice headline-friendly one-in-three, yet that never got mentioned.
But good on NPR. According to stereotype, you might expect them to feast on stories of American ignorance, but they were the only ones who noticed that other countries were worse off.
- One in four Americans 'do not know the Earth circles the Sun' (The Telegraph, UK)
- 1 in 4 Americans unaware that Earth circles Sun: poll (News.com.au, Australia) They also used the teaser link, "Finally, proof Americans are not very bright?"
- One in four Americans unaware that Earth revolves around Sun: poll (New Delhi Television, via Agence France-Presse)
- 1 in 4 Americans doesn't know Earth circles sun (USA Today)
- One in four Americans do not know the Earth circles the Sun and fewer than half know humans evolved from earlier species (Daily Mail, UK)
After reading that, is "Americans are idiots" really the first thing that comes to mind? The South Koreans were the only ones to beat the Americans by any significant amount. The U.S. did better than the Japanese on almost every question (not the evolution one, of course.) And the Europeans were the worst on the signature astronomy question. Their number even came out at a nice headline-friendly one-in-three, yet that never got mentioned.
But good on NPR. According to stereotype, you might expect them to feast on stories of American ignorance, but they were the only ones who noticed that other countries were worse off.
Friday, February 14, 2014
You Need More Sports You've Never Heard Of
After a week of the Winter Olympics, I've got some ideas for new sports:
Downhill Biathlon
The biathlon is interesting, but it would be nice of it was faster. It would also be better if you don't stop to do the shooting. Think of the challenge of shooting at targets as you go by at high speed. Unfortunately, it would be too dangerous to have any spectators on site.No-Landing Freestyle
This kind of goes for gymnastics too. It's so disappointing when someone does an impressive jump but fails to stick the landing. That's especially when the difference between winning and losing might be some minor thing like keeping their feet together. So let's have a class of freestyle where there's no judging on the landing. It's full marks for quintuple spinning cartwheel, even if you face-plant right after.Long Short-Track Speed Skating
That is, speed skating on the long track, but with the short track's rules (or lack thereof.) To put it another way, short track is like a stock car race, so this would be like a super speedway race. Oh, and we should have banked turns, like a velodrome."Skate" Boarding
When it comes to the "sliding" sports, we've already covered the idea of going down hill on your back, feet first (luge) on your front, head first (skeleton) and seated (bobsled.) Any other combinations would just be silly (say, head first on your back.) The only other possibility I can think of is to go down the track standing on the sled. It would be like a skate board, but with actual skates. At the very least, Shaun White won't think slopestyle is dangerous anymore.Universal Skiing
There's already a sport called Nordic Combined, in which competitors do a ski jump one day, and cross country skiing the next day. I say, let's take it even further by including downhill skiing. And let's take it even further than that, by having the competitors do each leg one after another, like a triathlon. You cross-country ski up the mountain, then turn and ski down the mountain, and do a jump off a ramp at the end.Thursday, February 13, 2014
A Valentines Proposal
Now this may come as a surprise to you, but Jesus probably wasn't born on December 25th. No, this isn't some atheist rant accusing Christians of hijacking pagan holidays; even Christian scholars basing their work on the bible agree it doesn't sound like the gospels are happening in early winter.
Some people will be upset by this idea, but I think most Christians would agree that celebration of Jesus and his teachings is the important thing, not whether it's on the correct date or not. Which brings me to my proposal: if we agree that Christmas isn't really at the right time, and we agree that it isn't a problem, then why not move it to a more convenient time?
The unfortunate thing about the timing of Christmas is that it comes at the start of the winter. We get the most joyous part of winter over with just as the worst of the weather is about to hit. That's especially unfortunate given that we have turned Christmas into a two-month holiday. Wouldn't it make more sense if those two months were over the most depressing weather of the year, brightening our darkest (literally) times. Once we have the letdown that Christmas is over, we'd have spring coming up.
So I think Valentine's Day would be the best time for Christmas. No one will miss Valentine's Day - singles hate it, the in-love don't need it. So switching it with Christmas shouldn't be a big problem. We just need the Catholic church's okay. So come on Francis, give it a go.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Phony Beatlemania Has Bitten The Dust
This week was the 50th anniversary of the Beatles' appearance on Ed Sullivan. I would have written about it earlier, but it was also the 50th anniversary of the introduction of GI Joe, and I just couldn't wrap my head around the idea of both those things happening the same week.
But now that the Beatles anniversary is over, I have to say it wasn't as big as I expected. Granted, I avoid the media outlets that might hype it. But still, there was little more than a spot on the news and a TV special opposite the Olympics.
Some folks on the Internet passed around a collection of bad reviews of that first performance from establishment figures like William F Buckley. But I feel sorry for those guys being raked through the mud now, and it offers a hint about why the anniversary wasn't that big.
(Fun fact: the keyboard interpreted "figures" as "fogies.")
Disclosure, I wasn't there; I wasn't born until after they broke up. But there's something about the Beatles that everyone seems to gloss over: for the first part of their career - including the Ed Sullivan performances - they were a bubblegum-pop band with a fanbase built on their looks. I'm sure if I had been there, I would have been watching a different channel and not imagining they'd ever go on to do anything profound. Most of the songs people reminisce about now are from later in their career.
And that's the paradox of the Beatles: If it hadn't been for their last five albums, their music wouldn't have nearly the staying power it has now. We'd remember them as a 60's counterpart to ABBA: someone who made catchy, fun songs, but didn't change the face of music. On the other hand, if they hadn't had that first half of their career driving teenage girls wild, they wouldn't have gotten the attention to be widely remembered. They'd be known only to hipsters arguing if they were as influential as the Velvet Underground.
So the Beatles were the result of a pop-cultural perfect storm, as the rare teen idols that developed great musical skill. Unfortunately, these two sides of the band have been conflated into a false narrative in which we kid ourselves that those screaming girls in Ed Sullivan's audience are turned on by the idea that their songwriting prowess will eventually lead to Sgt. Pepper.
And that's the problem with the Ed Sullivan appearance: it doesn't really mesh with what we remember about the Beatles. Worse is what it does remind us of: Justin Bieber, and all the hormone-fueled idols before him. If anything, the Beatles' appearance in America does a disservice to their reputation. So for anyone who wants to reminisce, it's much better to wait a few years and make a big deal when we can say, "It was fifty years ago today..."
But now that the Beatles anniversary is over, I have to say it wasn't as big as I expected. Granted, I avoid the media outlets that might hype it. But still, there was little more than a spot on the news and a TV special opposite the Olympics.
Some folks on the Internet passed around a collection of bad reviews of that first performance from establishment figures like William F Buckley. But I feel sorry for those guys being raked through the mud now, and it offers a hint about why the anniversary wasn't that big.
(Fun fact: the keyboard interpreted "figures" as "fogies.")
Disclosure, I wasn't there; I wasn't born until after they broke up. But there's something about the Beatles that everyone seems to gloss over: for the first part of their career - including the Ed Sullivan performances - they were a bubblegum-pop band with a fanbase built on their looks. I'm sure if I had been there, I would have been watching a different channel and not imagining they'd ever go on to do anything profound. Most of the songs people reminisce about now are from later in their career.
And that's the paradox of the Beatles: If it hadn't been for their last five albums, their music wouldn't have nearly the staying power it has now. We'd remember them as a 60's counterpart to ABBA: someone who made catchy, fun songs, but didn't change the face of music. On the other hand, if they hadn't had that first half of their career driving teenage girls wild, they wouldn't have gotten the attention to be widely remembered. They'd be known only to hipsters arguing if they were as influential as the Velvet Underground.
So the Beatles were the result of a pop-cultural perfect storm, as the rare teen idols that developed great musical skill. Unfortunately, these two sides of the band have been conflated into a false narrative in which we kid ourselves that those screaming girls in Ed Sullivan's audience are turned on by the idea that their songwriting prowess will eventually lead to Sgt. Pepper.
And that's the problem with the Ed Sullivan appearance: it doesn't really mesh with what we remember about the Beatles. Worse is what it does remind us of: Justin Bieber, and all the hormone-fueled idols before him. If anything, the Beatles' appearance in America does a disservice to their reputation. So for anyone who wants to reminisce, it's much better to wait a few years and make a big deal when we can say, "It was fifty years ago today..."
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Some C_mplai_ts Ab_ut T__hnol_gy
You used to know how fast a computer was, just by using it. Sure, my old 386 took a second to render each frame in Doom, but I knew I could depend on it always being slow. But today's computers can be impressively quick, or they can grind to a halt.
For one thing, more of the devices we use are essentially computers that have been programed to do one thing, rather than a bit of electronics designed from the ground up to do one simple task. For instance, thirty years ago you could change channels quickly with a remote control that was little more than three transistors in a plastic box. But my cable box/PVR is really a computer that's particularly fast at processing video. Unfortunately, this means it boots up about as fast as a computer. For the first minute or so, it recognizes maybe half of my button presses. I type in one of the long modern channel number, but it misses half the numbers, so who knows which channel it's going to send me to. At least, that's my excuse how it got on that station.
It's also because most computers are multitasking. If something electronic is unresponsive, it's probably because that gizmo is doing something behind the scenes. Just about everything is connected to a network, if not the Internet, so it will have to occasionally tend to matters of communication. I think that's a reassuring way to look at it: these machines aren't slow they're just distracted. "Oh, I'm sorry, did you just press a button? I was just... Wait, give me a minute."
I'm assuming that's the problem with the self-check-out machines. Today I tried typing in the code for hothouse tomatoes, and it took so long to notice when I typed the first digit, that somehow it registered the second digit first, then the first digit. So I had to clear it and start again, but of course that forever too. And this was probably because it was getting updated on the price code for those new flat bagels while it was accepting my input.
Or maybe technology just hates me. I don't know why, all I've ever done is use it to complain about it.
For one thing, more of the devices we use are essentially computers that have been programed to do one thing, rather than a bit of electronics designed from the ground up to do one simple task. For instance, thirty years ago you could change channels quickly with a remote control that was little more than three transistors in a plastic box. But my cable box/PVR is really a computer that's particularly fast at processing video. Unfortunately, this means it boots up about as fast as a computer. For the first minute or so, it recognizes maybe half of my button presses. I type in one of the long modern channel number, but it misses half the numbers, so who knows which channel it's going to send me to. At least, that's my excuse how it got on that station.
It's also because most computers are multitasking. If something electronic is unresponsive, it's probably because that gizmo is doing something behind the scenes. Just about everything is connected to a network, if not the Internet, so it will have to occasionally tend to matters of communication. I think that's a reassuring way to look at it: these machines aren't slow they're just distracted. "Oh, I'm sorry, did you just press a button? I was just... Wait, give me a minute."
I'm assuming that's the problem with the self-check-out machines. Today I tried typing in the code for hothouse tomatoes, and it took so long to notice when I typed the first digit, that somehow it registered the second digit first, then the first digit. So I had to clear it and start again, but of course that forever too. And this was probably because it was getting updated on the price code for those new flat bagels while it was accepting my input.
Or maybe technology just hates me. I don't know why, all I've ever done is use it to complain about it.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Keep Calm and Reuse Memes
I have more Keep Calm spoofs for more countries. The last time I tried this, it fell victim to my problems getting graphics to work on this blog, but those are fixed now. So if you want to finally see topical humour about the U.S. 2012 election, go ahead. But here's some new stuff:
Egypt:
Ukraine:
Russia:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)