Back in 2006 a group of scientists pulled a deep sea clam out of the ocean and discovered that it was a whopping 400 years old. It was a very impressive find and to preserve it the scientists did what they had always done with deep sea clams, which was put it in the freezer. Unfortunately, as it turns out this particular clam was like most senior citizens, in that it hated being cold and the clam died while in the freezer. So much for doing no harm. (Do marine biologist have to take a version of the Hippocratic Oath?) Making it even worse is they did some follow-up examinations and discovered the clam was even older than previously thought, having been born in 1499. Now, I am sure the scientists were just doing what they had been taught to do but this is exactly the kind of blind, follow-the-regulations thinking that I believe gets us into trouble. For example, I don't know anything about deep sea clams but I know that if you want to keep anything alive putting it in the freezer sounds like a really bad idea, so I probably would have double-checked with someone if that it what we should be doing. Even if that weren't the case, shouldn't these biologist know by now that not all animals react to cold the same way and been observing the clam to make sure it wasn't about to freeze to death? Maybe my way takes a little longer, but at least then we wouldn't have killed the creature which was born just a few years after Columbus sailed to America. I guess it's a good thing we still have history majors around to tell us what their history books said happened.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Deep Freeze
There are many ways to measure intelligence. The most obvious are things like standardized tests, such as the SATs, which can be vital in determining what college or university you get into. Personally I don't put much stock in that, mostly because how important can a thing like the SATs really be when people stop caring what you did the second you start college (sorry, high school juniors and seniors, but it is true). Too often I feel like society makes the mistake of hearing a person is well-educated and automatically assuming they are very smart. However, the more I travel through life the more I discover that one does not necessarily equal the other since all it takes to pass certain classes is to repeat the things the teacher just told you back to them. This is especially true when it comes to majors such a math and science where the answers are predetermined and you just need to know how input the variables in the correct order to find them. That shows a wonderful gift for retaining information, but I also worry that particular way of studying doesn't teach you how to think on your feet. I am much more impressed with people who understand that most problems you will face in your everyday life are unique to that situation and therefore don't have a ready-made solution, requiring a little improvisational thinking. I'm not saying anything crazy like the Ivy League is full of idiots (though, obviously there are exceptions to every rule) just that there is a difference between being educated and actually knowing how to use your brain.
Back in 2006 a group of scientists pulled a deep sea clam out of the ocean and discovered that it was a whopping 400 years old. It was a very impressive find and to preserve it the scientists did what they had always done with deep sea clams, which was put it in the freezer. Unfortunately, as it turns out this particular clam was like most senior citizens, in that it hated being cold and the clam died while in the freezer. So much for doing no harm. (Do marine biologist have to take a version of the Hippocratic Oath?) Making it even worse is they did some follow-up examinations and discovered the clam was even older than previously thought, having been born in 1499. Now, I am sure the scientists were just doing what they had been taught to do but this is exactly the kind of blind, follow-the-regulations thinking that I believe gets us into trouble. For example, I don't know anything about deep sea clams but I know that if you want to keep anything alive putting it in the freezer sounds like a really bad idea, so I probably would have double-checked with someone if that it what we should be doing. Even if that weren't the case, shouldn't these biologist know by now that not all animals react to cold the same way and been observing the clam to make sure it wasn't about to freeze to death? Maybe my way takes a little longer, but at least then we wouldn't have killed the creature which was born just a few years after Columbus sailed to America. I guess it's a good thing we still have history majors around to tell us what their history books said happened.
Back in 2006 a group of scientists pulled a deep sea clam out of the ocean and discovered that it was a whopping 400 years old. It was a very impressive find and to preserve it the scientists did what they had always done with deep sea clams, which was put it in the freezer. Unfortunately, as it turns out this particular clam was like most senior citizens, in that it hated being cold and the clam died while in the freezer. So much for doing no harm. (Do marine biologist have to take a version of the Hippocratic Oath?) Making it even worse is they did some follow-up examinations and discovered the clam was even older than previously thought, having been born in 1499. Now, I am sure the scientists were just doing what they had been taught to do but this is exactly the kind of blind, follow-the-regulations thinking that I believe gets us into trouble. For example, I don't know anything about deep sea clams but I know that if you want to keep anything alive putting it in the freezer sounds like a really bad idea, so I probably would have double-checked with someone if that it what we should be doing. Even if that weren't the case, shouldn't these biologist know by now that not all animals react to cold the same way and been observing the clam to make sure it wasn't about to freeze to death? Maybe my way takes a little longer, but at least then we wouldn't have killed the creature which was born just a few years after Columbus sailed to America. I guess it's a good thing we still have history majors around to tell us what their history books said happened.
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Weekly Sporties
-The only thing which was more predictable than Richie Icognito filing a grievance against the Miami Dolphins for being indefinitely suspended as the face of the Jonathan Martin bullying incident was the inevitable over-correction around the rest of the sports world which follows any kind of scandal. Putting distance between your organization's behavior and something a notorious person has done happens in all walks of life but since sport teams are often pointed to as needing to set a better example for kids, they not only try and go the other way faster than the rest, they tend to go further than everyone as well. Obviously, no team wants to have a situation like this happen to them and are deathly afraid a player could accuse them of allowing this sort of behavior, which is why I was hardly surprised to see stories popping up all over the web in which teams are essentially being told to end all rookie hazing and instead gather round, hold hands and sing campfire songs. It has even reached the professional level of other sports as this week Minnesota Timberwolves rookie forward Shabazz Muhammad was told he no longer has to carry around the Jonas Brothers backpack he was given by the team's veterans and ordered to wear when the Wolves traveled to away games. Here's the thing I feel like people are failing to grasp: just because Richie Icognito and the Dolphins let their rookie hazing get out of hand, that doesn't mean hazing in all forms is a bad thing. I think some good-natured razzing in small amounts is a good thing because not only does it humble guys who are coming out of college (and Muhammad could stand to be a little more humble given the hype he had last year in college versus what he has done so far in the pros), but it also lets the team know how much these rookies want to be there. Like I said last week, professional sports takes a certain mindset and sooner or later you need to know if guys really want to do this for a career of if he is only interested in the paycheck. I don't think asking a guy to carry around an embarrassing backpack, carry shoulder pads to the locker room or bring donuts to the Friday meetings are the worst things in the world. Obviously, asking rookies to pay for $30,000 dinners or leaving them menacing voicemails is too much but there is no need to get rid of all this stuff just because one team is a poorly-run, dysfunctional mess. It's too much of a black/white response to a question with a lot of gray areas. Besides, if the Miami Dolphins were allowed to set the standard for all of professional sports than I am pretty sure the NFL would have folded years ago.
-While we're on the subject poorly-chosen enforcers, the other night the Los Angeles Clippers and Oklahoma City Thunder were facing off when Thunder forward Serge Ibaka got tangled up with Blake Griffin and the two started jawing back and forth. Griffin has a reputation for being soft in many basketball circles, so this is a common occurrence as people think they can push him around and there will be no retaliation. Since this was a basketball "fight", nothing but words were going to be exchanged, until Clippers guard Matt Barnes came over to get his two cents in, escalated the proceedings and got himself ejected. Barnes considers himself something of an enforcer - if there can be such a thing in basketball - so this also happens a lot. The difference is that this time when Barnes was back in the locker room he took to Twitter to voice his frustration and declared he was never going to do this anymore because it costs him too much money (he usually gets fined for his actions and this will be no exception). Here's the thing about Barnes - no one asked him to intervene and he was not involved in the play. The situation was winding down and he ramped it back up, which is why he got ejected. Now, it is entirely possible that Doc Rivers has told Barnes he is on the roster to provide toughness and that he should have Griffin's back which is why he rushed to his side, but having watched Doc Rivers coach for the last few years I can guarantee this is not the kind of toughness he had in mind. Rivers is more about mental toughness because you can't help the team win from the locker room. I can't help but wonder if Barnes has started to believe he is actually a tough guy, even though no basketball player can ever be considered truly tough (truly tough guys don't whine that much). The sad part is Barnes is actually a talented player and exactly the kind of guy every fan would want on their team - he often takes shorter deals for less money to make sure he is playing for a championship instead of getting a higher salary while being out of the playoff race in January. But thanks to his actions instead of being celebrated he has turned into the guy who needlessly elevates a situation to the point of starting a fight than wants you to thank him for doing so. Also, I don't think Barnes or the Clippers are doing Griffin any favors by assigning him a bodyguard, because having someone else fight your battles is not the way to show people that you are tough. For both those reasons I hope Barnes is true to his words and this never happens again. I'm sure his accountant is hoping that is the case as well.
-Due to the influx of one-and-done players, college basketball has become something of a niche sport, getting the majority of its attention only during March Madness. The problem is people only care about their own schools because the truly great players aren't around long enough to form an attachment to them. However, there is one thing college basketball has going for it which college football does not and that is basketball coaches are willing to schedule tough regular season match-ups. Unlike football teams in the SEC, who figure their conference schedule is hard enough as it is so they fill out there remaining games against weak competition, college basketball coaches want to see how they stack up against the best of the best, which how we got a night like what happened this week. On Tuesday in Chicago #1 Kentucky played #2 Michigan State, followed by #5 Kansas against #4 Duke. Depending on whose draft board you believe, there were as many as 16 future first-round picks playing in those two games, which is why 80 NBA scouts got credentials for the United Center. It was a great night for college basketball in the minds of everyone except Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski, who doesn't like all the scouts being there because it leads him to believe teams in the NBA could be tanking to get better draft picks and he thinks tanking is un-American (seriously, those were his words). I happen to agree that tanking in the NBA is a bad idea, but that is only because I have seen my team try that strategy twice and never get the first pick. But, even though I agree with the message, I think in this case the messenger needs to stop talking. While I have seen that he knows how to put a team together, Coach K has never coached in the NBA and thus has never had to navigate the murky waters of player movement (the closest he has come was coaching Team USA and all he had to do there was ask the players). Krzyzewski is at one of best college programs in the country, which means if he sees a player he wants he can just recruit him, all it will cost him is time and because of who he is he will probably get that player. That isn't how it works in the NBA, especially if you are in a small market or cold-weather city. Those teams don't get free agents, which means they have to build through the draft. If that means having a down season leading up to a draft which is supposed to be among the deepest in history, so be it because it could be the only way some of these franchises will ever be able to compete. Let Coach K take over a team like Milwaukee for a couple of seasons and we'll see if he's singing a different tune.
-Nothing makes me want to stop watching sports forever more than when a professional organization which makes millions of dollars in profits every year holds a city hostage by threatening to leave if the city doesn't build them a new stadium. As much as I hate to see loyal fans lose their beloved franchises, I have to respect the city leaders who think paying teachers and repairing roads are more important than raising tax rates to make sure some billionaire owner has enough luxury boxes (especially since many studies have proven the "economic benefits" the team always promise a new stadium will bring are totally made up). That is why I was very disappointed to learn that the Atlanta Braves found a willing sucker in nearby Cobb County, who will give the team nearly $400 million for a new stadium, which will move them out of downtown in time for the 2017 season. Adding another layer to this is that Turner Field, where the Braves currently play, is only 17 years old. It was originally built for the 1996 Olympic Games and converted for baseball, which the Braves say is the problem. Since it was originally designed to only be used for two weeks, the fact they have played in it for 17 years is apparently the worst thing which has ever happened in the history of baseball. (I do like the fact that the city of Atlanta has already said they will demolish Turner Field as soon as the Braves leave. Not only is that a nice middle finger to the team, it will stop Atlanta from turning into yet another city full of empty buildings that it constructed for the Olympics and then never used again. Part of me wants Atlanta to tear down the stadium and then have there be a construction delay at the new park.) I think a major part of my problem with the Braves is that I happen to live in a city where the team has used the same ballpark for 101 years and they don't have any trouble competing for Championships. That kind of makes it impossible for me to have any sympathy for you simply because the stadium you play in wasn't built for you, specifically. Also, the irony which is in play because of the way that the Braves have taken it upon themselves during the last year to be the "classy" franchise that does it "the right way", yet here they are screwing over their state is not lost on me. Now, from a business standpoint this makes some sense because Cobb County has a large number of Braves season ticket holders and it will make it easier for them to get to games. However, considering Braves fans don't show up for playoff games I am not sure putting a stadium in their back yards would get attendance figures up.
-But since we are on the subject of baseball franchises with an inflated sense of self worth, the New York Yankees are looking for a new closer for the first time in nearly 20 years following the retirement of Mariano Rivera. According to reports this week it look as though former Giants closer Brian Wilson won't be heading to the Bronx anytime soon and it has nothing to do with money. You see, the Yankees have a long tradition of not allowing facial hair and Wilson has become famous in the last couple of years for having a thick black beard, so even though there was mutual interest the deal won't happen because the Yankees won't change their "no facial hair" policy and Wilson won't shave his beard. This is a hard one to take sides on because I'm not sure who is being the bigger douche in this scenario. I have a visceral reaction anytime I hear about corporations imposing any kind of ban on personal style. It is one thing to require an appropriate dress code (though, even some of those make my skin crawl), but I don't think any company has the right to dictate how people decide to groom themselves. It would be one thing if they just decided not to hire that person, because that is totally their right, however the Yankees have a history of trading for players and then demanding they conform to this rule. I know this will come as a shock to some people in that organization but not everyone grows up dreaming of playing for the Yankees, so if a player who has and likes their facial hair gets sent to a team when they have no say in the process than I hope they rebel and end up looking like Grizzly Adams. On the other hand, there are few things in life I hate more than people who try way too hard to make themselves look interesting and in that regard Brian Wilson has become one of the more obnoxious athletes of the past five years. Everything he does off the field, from dying that beard black to showing up at award shows in kooky outfits, screams, "Please, for the love of God, pay attention to me!" I understand it can be hard to be an individual when everyone out there is dressed in the same uniform, but it has gotten to the point his antics have begun to overshadow the fact he was once a very good picture before Tommy John surgery. So, really, there are no winners here. Ultimately I guess I will have to side with Wilson, only because for as obnoxious as I find him he's only a player and will be gone from the public eye soon enough and, unfortunately, the Yankees and their annoying grandstanding will be around for much longer. Still, just for my peace of mind it was probably for the best these two decided not to team up.
-I continue to maintain that of all the professional sports leagues, the NHL is the most open about its problems and the most proactive (not to mention creative) when it comes to coming up with ways to solve those issues. Currently the NHL is dealing with the fact that 24% of all their games go to overtime, which doesn't sound like a particularly high number. The problem is that once those games reach that point teams get defensive and start playing not to lose so they can still get 1 point in the standings. As a result 60% of overtime games go to a shootout. Now, I am not fundamentally opposed to shoot-outs for the regular season because it is certainly better than a tie. As long as the league has teams keep playing however long is required until a goal is scored during the playoffs than making sure people don't have to watch 6 hours of hockey between the Panthers and Coyotes on a Tuesday night in March is fine with me. (This is why I can't take the World Cup seriously. How can you have the biggest prize in your sport decided by a shoot-out? That would be like the World Series getting decided by a homerun derby.) Still, the NHL would like to send fans home feeling a bit more fulfilled, which is why they have begun toying with the idea of having teams play 3-on-3 in overtime periods. I can not stress enough how much I love this idea. I may be a terrible skater, but even I know space and speed make the game much more fun to watch. If you don't believe me just watch the Olympics - they play on a bigger rink and the difference in style is staggering. Removing a couple of hulking defensemen and just putting out a couple of wingers and a center out there for the overtime period would make for a much faster and offensive-minded game. Not only would the teams be able to spread things out, the finesse players wouldn't worry about having their heads taken off by guys who never intend to shoot the puck. I am not saying this would automatically decrease the number of games which would end in a shoot-out, but I don't seem the harm in trying. Now, even though the NHL has a habit of flying by the seat of their pants and immediately implementing any rule it thinks will improve the games, I don't see this one being added to the rulebook before this season ends. The change would just be too drastic and it should probably be studied in leagues such as the AHL first. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if this were installed before next season. By this time next year NHL fans may stop dreading a game going to overtime and actually start rooting for it to happen.
-A couple weeks ago I talked about how I instinctively feel the need to defend everything and everyone who is from Boston, even when it is something I am not particularly proud of. My territorial nature kicks in and it simply can't be helped. Well, I am the same way whenever I meet people from foreign countries who try and talk down about American sports. One of the more heated debates I get into is the difference between NASCAR and Formula One. The Formula One crowd seems to think that given the short tracks and oval shapes of most NASCAR circuits, combined with the big cars they get to drive, the sport is somehow easy compared to all the turning Formula One drivers are asked to do in cars which are little more than rockets with wheels. Even though I am a casual NASCAR fan at best I feel the need to defend it, often by pointing out that if that were true than anyone could do it, yet somehow most Formula One drivers flame out spectacularly when they come over and try to drive a stock car despite the fact they tend to land with well-established teams who provide good equipment. It appears I will soon be able to make a similar argument to the rally-cross people as this week it was announced rally champion Travis Pastrana's attempt to drive in NASCAR will be short-lived, as he won't be back next year. Pastrana had been in NASCAR's Nationwide Series (think AAA-level) and most people had assumed he would go up to Sprint Cup Series next season, but it is not to be. Now, Pastrana only had a few top-10s to show for his effort so it is not like he had really earned a promotion but surprisingly Pastrana isn't leaving the sport because of poor results but rather because he reportedly can't find a sponsorship for his ride. This has to worry all the NASCAR teams because if you think their drivers are slaves to corporate marketing you should see rally drivers. Even in their daily lives those guys are essentially walking billboards. They are often sponsored by clothing companies and energy drink vendors and don't wear one stitch of clothing without it having a label on it while drinking from a can which has been duct-taped to their hands. If a high-profile guy with an impressive resume like Pastrana can't get a company to fork over enough money to fund his ride what chance do the small, one-car operations driven by talented-but-unknown drivers have to secure sponsorship? If this keeps up much longer we may see more NASCAR drivers try and find rides in Formula One. Not only will their aggressive driving style make things more interesting over there, it may finally settle the debate once and for all.
-While we're on the subject poorly-chosen enforcers, the other night the Los Angeles Clippers and Oklahoma City Thunder were facing off when Thunder forward Serge Ibaka got tangled up with Blake Griffin and the two started jawing back and forth. Griffin has a reputation for being soft in many basketball circles, so this is a common occurrence as people think they can push him around and there will be no retaliation. Since this was a basketball "fight", nothing but words were going to be exchanged, until Clippers guard Matt Barnes came over to get his two cents in, escalated the proceedings and got himself ejected. Barnes considers himself something of an enforcer - if there can be such a thing in basketball - so this also happens a lot. The difference is that this time when Barnes was back in the locker room he took to Twitter to voice his frustration and declared he was never going to do this anymore because it costs him too much money (he usually gets fined for his actions and this will be no exception). Here's the thing about Barnes - no one asked him to intervene and he was not involved in the play. The situation was winding down and he ramped it back up, which is why he got ejected. Now, it is entirely possible that Doc Rivers has told Barnes he is on the roster to provide toughness and that he should have Griffin's back which is why he rushed to his side, but having watched Doc Rivers coach for the last few years I can guarantee this is not the kind of toughness he had in mind. Rivers is more about mental toughness because you can't help the team win from the locker room. I can't help but wonder if Barnes has started to believe he is actually a tough guy, even though no basketball player can ever be considered truly tough (truly tough guys don't whine that much). The sad part is Barnes is actually a talented player and exactly the kind of guy every fan would want on their team - he often takes shorter deals for less money to make sure he is playing for a championship instead of getting a higher salary while being out of the playoff race in January. But thanks to his actions instead of being celebrated he has turned into the guy who needlessly elevates a situation to the point of starting a fight than wants you to thank him for doing so. Also, I don't think Barnes or the Clippers are doing Griffin any favors by assigning him a bodyguard, because having someone else fight your battles is not the way to show people that you are tough. For both those reasons I hope Barnes is true to his words and this never happens again. I'm sure his accountant is hoping that is the case as well.
-Due to the influx of one-and-done players, college basketball has become something of a niche sport, getting the majority of its attention only during March Madness. The problem is people only care about their own schools because the truly great players aren't around long enough to form an attachment to them. However, there is one thing college basketball has going for it which college football does not and that is basketball coaches are willing to schedule tough regular season match-ups. Unlike football teams in the SEC, who figure their conference schedule is hard enough as it is so they fill out there remaining games against weak competition, college basketball coaches want to see how they stack up against the best of the best, which how we got a night like what happened this week. On Tuesday in Chicago #1 Kentucky played #2 Michigan State, followed by #5 Kansas against #4 Duke. Depending on whose draft board you believe, there were as many as 16 future first-round picks playing in those two games, which is why 80 NBA scouts got credentials for the United Center. It was a great night for college basketball in the minds of everyone except Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski, who doesn't like all the scouts being there because it leads him to believe teams in the NBA could be tanking to get better draft picks and he thinks tanking is un-American (seriously, those were his words). I happen to agree that tanking in the NBA is a bad idea, but that is only because I have seen my team try that strategy twice and never get the first pick. But, even though I agree with the message, I think in this case the messenger needs to stop talking. While I have seen that he knows how to put a team together, Coach K has never coached in the NBA and thus has never had to navigate the murky waters of player movement (the closest he has come was coaching Team USA and all he had to do there was ask the players). Krzyzewski is at one of best college programs in the country, which means if he sees a player he wants he can just recruit him, all it will cost him is time and because of who he is he will probably get that player. That isn't how it works in the NBA, especially if you are in a small market or cold-weather city. Those teams don't get free agents, which means they have to build through the draft. If that means having a down season leading up to a draft which is supposed to be among the deepest in history, so be it because it could be the only way some of these franchises will ever be able to compete. Let Coach K take over a team like Milwaukee for a couple of seasons and we'll see if he's singing a different tune.
-Nothing makes me want to stop watching sports forever more than when a professional organization which makes millions of dollars in profits every year holds a city hostage by threatening to leave if the city doesn't build them a new stadium. As much as I hate to see loyal fans lose their beloved franchises, I have to respect the city leaders who think paying teachers and repairing roads are more important than raising tax rates to make sure some billionaire owner has enough luxury boxes (especially since many studies have proven the "economic benefits" the team always promise a new stadium will bring are totally made up). That is why I was very disappointed to learn that the Atlanta Braves found a willing sucker in nearby Cobb County, who will give the team nearly $400 million for a new stadium, which will move them out of downtown in time for the 2017 season. Adding another layer to this is that Turner Field, where the Braves currently play, is only 17 years old. It was originally built for the 1996 Olympic Games and converted for baseball, which the Braves say is the problem. Since it was originally designed to only be used for two weeks, the fact they have played in it for 17 years is apparently the worst thing which has ever happened in the history of baseball. (I do like the fact that the city of Atlanta has already said they will demolish Turner Field as soon as the Braves leave. Not only is that a nice middle finger to the team, it will stop Atlanta from turning into yet another city full of empty buildings that it constructed for the Olympics and then never used again. Part of me wants Atlanta to tear down the stadium and then have there be a construction delay at the new park.) I think a major part of my problem with the Braves is that I happen to live in a city where the team has used the same ballpark for 101 years and they don't have any trouble competing for Championships. That kind of makes it impossible for me to have any sympathy for you simply because the stadium you play in wasn't built for you, specifically. Also, the irony which is in play because of the way that the Braves have taken it upon themselves during the last year to be the "classy" franchise that does it "the right way", yet here they are screwing over their state is not lost on me. Now, from a business standpoint this makes some sense because Cobb County has a large number of Braves season ticket holders and it will make it easier for them to get to games. However, considering Braves fans don't show up for playoff games I am not sure putting a stadium in their back yards would get attendance figures up.
-But since we are on the subject of baseball franchises with an inflated sense of self worth, the New York Yankees are looking for a new closer for the first time in nearly 20 years following the retirement of Mariano Rivera. According to reports this week it look as though former Giants closer Brian Wilson won't be heading to the Bronx anytime soon and it has nothing to do with money. You see, the Yankees have a long tradition of not allowing facial hair and Wilson has become famous in the last couple of years for having a thick black beard, so even though there was mutual interest the deal won't happen because the Yankees won't change their "no facial hair" policy and Wilson won't shave his beard. This is a hard one to take sides on because I'm not sure who is being the bigger douche in this scenario. I have a visceral reaction anytime I hear about corporations imposing any kind of ban on personal style. It is one thing to require an appropriate dress code (though, even some of those make my skin crawl), but I don't think any company has the right to dictate how people decide to groom themselves. It would be one thing if they just decided not to hire that person, because that is totally their right, however the Yankees have a history of trading for players and then demanding they conform to this rule. I know this will come as a shock to some people in that organization but not everyone grows up dreaming of playing for the Yankees, so if a player who has and likes their facial hair gets sent to a team when they have no say in the process than I hope they rebel and end up looking like Grizzly Adams. On the other hand, there are few things in life I hate more than people who try way too hard to make themselves look interesting and in that regard Brian Wilson has become one of the more obnoxious athletes of the past five years. Everything he does off the field, from dying that beard black to showing up at award shows in kooky outfits, screams, "Please, for the love of God, pay attention to me!" I understand it can be hard to be an individual when everyone out there is dressed in the same uniform, but it has gotten to the point his antics have begun to overshadow the fact he was once a very good picture before Tommy John surgery. So, really, there are no winners here. Ultimately I guess I will have to side with Wilson, only because for as obnoxious as I find him he's only a player and will be gone from the public eye soon enough and, unfortunately, the Yankees and their annoying grandstanding will be around for much longer. Still, just for my peace of mind it was probably for the best these two decided not to team up.
-I continue to maintain that of all the professional sports leagues, the NHL is the most open about its problems and the most proactive (not to mention creative) when it comes to coming up with ways to solve those issues. Currently the NHL is dealing with the fact that 24% of all their games go to overtime, which doesn't sound like a particularly high number. The problem is that once those games reach that point teams get defensive and start playing not to lose so they can still get 1 point in the standings. As a result 60% of overtime games go to a shootout. Now, I am not fundamentally opposed to shoot-outs for the regular season because it is certainly better than a tie. As long as the league has teams keep playing however long is required until a goal is scored during the playoffs than making sure people don't have to watch 6 hours of hockey between the Panthers and Coyotes on a Tuesday night in March is fine with me. (This is why I can't take the World Cup seriously. How can you have the biggest prize in your sport decided by a shoot-out? That would be like the World Series getting decided by a homerun derby.) Still, the NHL would like to send fans home feeling a bit more fulfilled, which is why they have begun toying with the idea of having teams play 3-on-3 in overtime periods. I can not stress enough how much I love this idea. I may be a terrible skater, but even I know space and speed make the game much more fun to watch. If you don't believe me just watch the Olympics - they play on a bigger rink and the difference in style is staggering. Removing a couple of hulking defensemen and just putting out a couple of wingers and a center out there for the overtime period would make for a much faster and offensive-minded game. Not only would the teams be able to spread things out, the finesse players wouldn't worry about having their heads taken off by guys who never intend to shoot the puck. I am not saying this would automatically decrease the number of games which would end in a shoot-out, but I don't seem the harm in trying. Now, even though the NHL has a habit of flying by the seat of their pants and immediately implementing any rule it thinks will improve the games, I don't see this one being added to the rulebook before this season ends. The change would just be too drastic and it should probably be studied in leagues such as the AHL first. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if this were installed before next season. By this time next year NHL fans may stop dreading a game going to overtime and actually start rooting for it to happen.
-A couple weeks ago I talked about how I instinctively feel the need to defend everything and everyone who is from Boston, even when it is something I am not particularly proud of. My territorial nature kicks in and it simply can't be helped. Well, I am the same way whenever I meet people from foreign countries who try and talk down about American sports. One of the more heated debates I get into is the difference between NASCAR and Formula One. The Formula One crowd seems to think that given the short tracks and oval shapes of most NASCAR circuits, combined with the big cars they get to drive, the sport is somehow easy compared to all the turning Formula One drivers are asked to do in cars which are little more than rockets with wheels. Even though I am a casual NASCAR fan at best I feel the need to defend it, often by pointing out that if that were true than anyone could do it, yet somehow most Formula One drivers flame out spectacularly when they come over and try to drive a stock car despite the fact they tend to land with well-established teams who provide good equipment. It appears I will soon be able to make a similar argument to the rally-cross people as this week it was announced rally champion Travis Pastrana's attempt to drive in NASCAR will be short-lived, as he won't be back next year. Pastrana had been in NASCAR's Nationwide Series (think AAA-level) and most people had assumed he would go up to Sprint Cup Series next season, but it is not to be. Now, Pastrana only had a few top-10s to show for his effort so it is not like he had really earned a promotion but surprisingly Pastrana isn't leaving the sport because of poor results but rather because he reportedly can't find a sponsorship for his ride. This has to worry all the NASCAR teams because if you think their drivers are slaves to corporate marketing you should see rally drivers. Even in their daily lives those guys are essentially walking billboards. They are often sponsored by clothing companies and energy drink vendors and don't wear one stitch of clothing without it having a label on it while drinking from a can which has been duct-taped to their hands. If a high-profile guy with an impressive resume like Pastrana can't get a company to fork over enough money to fund his ride what chance do the small, one-car operations driven by talented-but-unknown drivers have to secure sponsorship? If this keeps up much longer we may see more NASCAR drivers try and find rides in Formula One. Not only will their aggressive driving style make things more interesting over there, it may finally settle the debate once and for all.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Devious DNA
A few years ago I read an article about the uphill battles police and district attorneys face while trying to get convictions thanks in large part to all the popular crime dramas on TV. Because so many people watch shows like "NCIS" or "CSI" where the issue of who did the crime is never in doubt, jurors have come to expect mountains of forensic evidence to go along with positive DNA tests on the murder weapon to prove once and for all the person sitting in the courtroom is guilty. Without that evidence juries can't shake the feeling of having reasonable doubt and are reluctant to send people to jail. (The number of stories in the news about people being released from jail after decades because they were wrongly convicted aren't helping either. I certainly wouldn't want that kind of thing on my conscience.) The reality is the prosecution just can't get results that fast and, oh yeah, half of the science on the show doesn't exist in the first place. This makes me sad for a couple of reasons, the first of which is the realization that the people who can send another human being to jail for the rest of their natural lives can't tell the difference between a television show and real life. But the other thing is it proves just how poorly this country is doing with science because clearly the average citizen doesn't know just how long it takes to process DNA. Untangling the human code isn't something which can be done in a couple of hours. Maybe if we all signed up for this next product they would gain a little more perspective.
I keep seeing the same commercial for a mail-away DNA test over and over again. (The crazy stuff which can be sold via infomercials once the clock strikes midnight could be a post unto itself.) Apparently for the low price of $99 you take a cheek swab, mail it to the lab and a few weeks later this company contends you will learn new information about your family history such as where your ancestors really came from. The test results will also help find long-lost relatives, provide you with insights into potential diseases you may have lurking under the surface, let you know how your body will react to specific medicines or if you should change your diet. If that isn't enough personal information for you, there is also a way to send it in with a spouse and learn about potential diseases your combined DNA could give your future children. (You know, just in case you needed a Valentine's Day present.) My first impression upon seeing this to assume it is all some kind of scam. My mind immediately thought of a service from a few years ago which alleged it could trace your lineage and, wouldn't you know it, everyone who paid the money got a certificate that they were somehow royalty. It was only after a large investigation that the company had to admit they pretty much just sent every subscriber the same story and hoped no one would catch on. But, even if this is totally legit, the idea of having my DNA going through the mail makes me rather nervous. I guess that is the best way to make sure it gets there but still, am I the only one who sees the problem with sending your DNA off to complete strangers?
Did we learn nothing from the early 2000s, when identity theft was rampant? Sure, thanks to the news and eventually all knowing someone who was a victim of it we became much more aware of how it happened, so now we are all a little more careful with our personal information but that doesn't mean we can relax. There are always going to be people out there who want to find your personal information and do bad things with it and you can't get much more personal than your genetic code. I'm afraid to throw away credit card offers without shredding them first because I am convinced my identity will be stolen and suddenly I am expected to be cool with mailing off my DNA to a random lab and assuming everything will be on the up-and-up? (It probably doesn't help that I keep seeing ads for LifeLock in the same commercial block.) They say in the future security is going to become increasingly personal, asking for things like thumbprints instead of simple passwords. It is not a stretch to assume some kind of DNA matching system isn't far behind for people with extremely high security clearance. That's just what could happen if you focus on the high-value targets - the reality is it will be the average citizen who will be targeted first. For all I know this is just an extremely complicated scheme to get a bunch of random samples to contaminate a crime scene and make the perfect getaway. I would hate to be a suspect in a murder when all I wanted to know was if I was a distant relative to Bill Gates.
Obviously I'm joking around because that is an extreme circumstance, but it doesn't change the fact that I am skeptical about this product because there is no way of knowing where else this DNA could be cataloged. Don't get me wrong, I actually think a national database with people's DNA would be a good idea - it would help identify remains of people who have gone missing, finally giving those families closure, or catch criminals who try and commit the same crimes in different states and assume the cops will never be able to make a connection. The number of false arrests would plummet. The only thing is that in my mind a database like that would be completely voluntary and people know what they are signing up for. This site claims it will protect your personal DNA, but I remember when cops used to catch criminals by telling them they had won a new TV and had to come pick it up, then would arrest them when they arrived. Is it so hard to imagine a scenario where some agency would set up this kind of operation and then keep your DNA on file, just in case? And that's assuming the people who are doing the collection have honest intentions, which we can't take for granted given the recent admissions by the NSA. (I know they aren't listening to 95% of us, but it still makes me realize we should stay on our toes... I'm trying not to sound paranoid, but at least I can admit I am failing.) When was the last time a person running a scam came right out and admitted that is what they were doing? Which is too bad, because if we could get more of them to do that we wouldn't have to worry so much about having DNA evidence to convict criminals.
I keep seeing the same commercial for a mail-away DNA test over and over again. (The crazy stuff which can be sold via infomercials once the clock strikes midnight could be a post unto itself.) Apparently for the low price of $99 you take a cheek swab, mail it to the lab and a few weeks later this company contends you will learn new information about your family history such as where your ancestors really came from. The test results will also help find long-lost relatives, provide you with insights into potential diseases you may have lurking under the surface, let you know how your body will react to specific medicines or if you should change your diet. If that isn't enough personal information for you, there is also a way to send it in with a spouse and learn about potential diseases your combined DNA could give your future children. (You know, just in case you needed a Valentine's Day present.) My first impression upon seeing this to assume it is all some kind of scam. My mind immediately thought of a service from a few years ago which alleged it could trace your lineage and, wouldn't you know it, everyone who paid the money got a certificate that they were somehow royalty. It was only after a large investigation that the company had to admit they pretty much just sent every subscriber the same story and hoped no one would catch on. But, even if this is totally legit, the idea of having my DNA going through the mail makes me rather nervous. I guess that is the best way to make sure it gets there but still, am I the only one who sees the problem with sending your DNA off to complete strangers?
Did we learn nothing from the early 2000s, when identity theft was rampant? Sure, thanks to the news and eventually all knowing someone who was a victim of it we became much more aware of how it happened, so now we are all a little more careful with our personal information but that doesn't mean we can relax. There are always going to be people out there who want to find your personal information and do bad things with it and you can't get much more personal than your genetic code. I'm afraid to throw away credit card offers without shredding them first because I am convinced my identity will be stolen and suddenly I am expected to be cool with mailing off my DNA to a random lab and assuming everything will be on the up-and-up? (It probably doesn't help that I keep seeing ads for LifeLock in the same commercial block.) They say in the future security is going to become increasingly personal, asking for things like thumbprints instead of simple passwords. It is not a stretch to assume some kind of DNA matching system isn't far behind for people with extremely high security clearance. That's just what could happen if you focus on the high-value targets - the reality is it will be the average citizen who will be targeted first. For all I know this is just an extremely complicated scheme to get a bunch of random samples to contaminate a crime scene and make the perfect getaway. I would hate to be a suspect in a murder when all I wanted to know was if I was a distant relative to Bill Gates.
Obviously I'm joking around because that is an extreme circumstance, but it doesn't change the fact that I am skeptical about this product because there is no way of knowing where else this DNA could be cataloged. Don't get me wrong, I actually think a national database with people's DNA would be a good idea - it would help identify remains of people who have gone missing, finally giving those families closure, or catch criminals who try and commit the same crimes in different states and assume the cops will never be able to make a connection. The number of false arrests would plummet. The only thing is that in my mind a database like that would be completely voluntary and people know what they are signing up for. This site claims it will protect your personal DNA, but I remember when cops used to catch criminals by telling them they had won a new TV and had to come pick it up, then would arrest them when they arrived. Is it so hard to imagine a scenario where some agency would set up this kind of operation and then keep your DNA on file, just in case? And that's assuming the people who are doing the collection have honest intentions, which we can't take for granted given the recent admissions by the NSA. (I know they aren't listening to 95% of us, but it still makes me realize we should stay on our toes... I'm trying not to sound paranoid, but at least I can admit I am failing.) When was the last time a person running a scam came right out and admitted that is what they were doing? Which is too bad, because if we could get more of them to do that we wouldn't have to worry so much about having DNA evidence to convict criminals.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Going It Alone
When it was first announced that John Oliver would be taking over the helm of "The Daily Show" while Jon Stewart went off to direct a movie, I was supremely confident he would do a great job. I have enjoyed Oliver's comedic style since he first started showing up on "The Daily Show" a few years ago and thought of everyone on staff he would do the best job. After a rough first week in which I thought he was trying a little too hard to do his best Stewart impression, he really seemed to find his footing and the remaining two months of shows were excellent. Oliver seemed to bring a fresh energy to the proceedings and his views on America, painted with the bemused twist that can only come from someone who wasn't raised in the country, were a nice change of pace. (Don't get me wrong - I was still quite happy when Stewart came back because he gets deeper into the issues, just saying the brief switch was enjoyable.) Either way the run of shows proved that Oliver could step back into the role if Stewart ever wanted to take another extended break or when he eventually retires (which hopefully is a long way off). Still, I got the impression what those weeks really were was an audition for Oliver's own show. Everyone knows Colbert isn't going to stay where he is forever, so I thought they were grooming Oliver to be his logical successor and testing to see how he would do behind the desk. Turns out we won't get to find out because Oliver won't have to wait that long, as this afternoon it was announced he will be getting his own weekly show on HBO starting in 2014.
I have to admit, I will be very interested to see how this works out. Because even though Oliver arrives with a built-in fanbase, there is no guarantee those people will follow him (for example, as much as I like Oliver I don't have HBO and have no plans to get it). Also, "The Daily Show" has a format that works and Oliver stuck with it. In that regards it wasn't really his show, he was just in charge of not screwing it up before handing the reins over when Stewart returned. It sounds as if Oliver's HBO effort will have a lot of the same political themes, just once a week instead of every night (also a wise idea, better to ease into this kind of thing) but I will still like to see how much creative control he has to make the show over in his style. Additionally I feel like Oliver's personality will provide a nice contrast to the much more bombastic Bill Maher. [Sidebar: Go fuck yourself, Bill.] However, there is still a risk involved because the sad truth is that being a funny stand-up doesn't mean you will have a funny TV show. But more than anything I am interested to see how far HBO plans to dip back into comedy. For the longest time the network was the place all comedians aspired to reach but in the last few years it has veered more towards the science fiction/drama side of things with hits like "True Blood", "Game of Thrones" and "Boardwalk Empire." Honestly, it if weren't for Louis CK pumping out a new hour every year I am not totally sure I could name you the last time I was anxious to see a comedy which was exclusive to HBO. This move has made me interested, but I'm still going to want to see a few clips online before I call up my local cable provider. Still, I think the saddest part of this is that it will probably signal the end for his yearly stand-up show, which gave us some great laughs, none better than the one I posted below.
I have to admit, I will be very interested to see how this works out. Because even though Oliver arrives with a built-in fanbase, there is no guarantee those people will follow him (for example, as much as I like Oliver I don't have HBO and have no plans to get it). Also, "The Daily Show" has a format that works and Oliver stuck with it. In that regards it wasn't really his show, he was just in charge of not screwing it up before handing the reins over when Stewart returned. It sounds as if Oliver's HBO effort will have a lot of the same political themes, just once a week instead of every night (also a wise idea, better to ease into this kind of thing) but I will still like to see how much creative control he has to make the show over in his style. Additionally I feel like Oliver's personality will provide a nice contrast to the much more bombastic Bill Maher. [Sidebar: Go fuck yourself, Bill.] However, there is still a risk involved because the sad truth is that being a funny stand-up doesn't mean you will have a funny TV show. But more than anything I am interested to see how far HBO plans to dip back into comedy. For the longest time the network was the place all comedians aspired to reach but in the last few years it has veered more towards the science fiction/drama side of things with hits like "True Blood", "Game of Thrones" and "Boardwalk Empire." Honestly, it if weren't for Louis CK pumping out a new hour every year I am not totally sure I could name you the last time I was anxious to see a comedy which was exclusive to HBO. This move has made me interested, but I'm still going to want to see a few clips online before I call up my local cable provider. Still, I think the saddest part of this is that it will probably signal the end for his yearly stand-up show, which gave us some great laughs, none better than the one I posted below.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Leave It Be
A few years ago Brian Regan, one of my favorite comedians, had a bit which revolved around America's obsession with cranberries. Specifically, he wondered why we suddenly felt the need to add cranberries to every single juice available. It was no longer good enough to drink apple juice, you had to drink cranapple juice... or cranorange... or crangrape. You get the point. It was as if we had just figured out liquids could be combined and were making up for lost time. Fortunately we have since backed off that to some degree (either that or we ran out of other juices to combine cranberries with) but since nature hates a vacuum we quickly started to do the same things with pumpkins. Even worse, when it comes to incorporating pumpkins we don't stop at liquids. From September through October you are hard pressed to find a single beverage or dessert which doesn't have pumpkin flavoring added to it. That's great if you happen to love the taste of pumpkin but not everyone feels that way, as some of us just want a regular coffee cake and are out of luck. I though we were finally out of the adding-things-which-don't-need-to-be-there woods once the calendar turned to November but that feeling of relief only lasted until I started flipping through some recipe magazines, looking for a new dish to attempt this holiday season. On every page I turned there was a recipe which claimed to either improve on a holiday favorite or change it altogether. As it turns out, people can't help but mess with perfection.
For reasons I can not explain, people seem to think Thanksgiving is the perfect time to start messing with foods. Recipes go unchanged for almost the entire year and then suddenly people just start going crazy with the items which have worked well for the last 11 months. Look, I'm not above this myself because as I mentioned I was looking for something different to make this year. The difference is that I'm looking to make something I have never had before if I find a recipe that works for me, that is going to be how I make that item until the end of my days. These people have recipes that are already crowd favorites and are changing them just for the sake of change and I've always felt that is a waste of time. I know change is how society moves forward but let's not go overboard here - these people aren't trying to make us safer or cure a disease, they aren't doing anything more than trying to look more sophisticated than the rest of us. I can almost understand the people who work for food publications trying out new ways to make old favorites because, frankly, they have to justify their existence. As it is they already have the very strange job which involves, much like movie critics, having a large enough ego to assume that everyone is going to like food exactly the same way as they do, even though the odds of that happening are impossible. If they just rolled out the same 15-20 recipes which are the most popular around the world they will be out of a job after six months, so sitting in a kitchen and trying to imagine a new twist on an old favorite could just be a way to look busy. All I am saying is that just because they came up with it, that doesn't mean we have to follow their lead.
[Sidebar: While browsing around these websites I have also noticed another food trend appears to be making things which are supposed to taste like other things. For example, everyone is raving about this new lasagna soup, which apparently tastes exactly like the real thing. Well, you know what else tastes like lasagna? Regular lasagna and it is not like it is exotic or particularly hard to make. I have never been eating lasagna and wishing it had a broth. I mean, I would be all for this constant messing around if someone out there had figured out a way to make ground beef taste like Kobe beef but that is not what is going on. This is just messing around for the sake of being difficult. They aren't even doing these new recipes as a way for them to be slightly healthier. Even though I think trying that would be a waste of time because nothing tastes as good as the real thing, at least that I could understand. (I find the whole "healthy" version of food to be cruel anyway. You ever have "sugar free" chocolate? I get what they are trying to do but I'd rather we just tell diabetics they can't have chocolate anymore. Teasing them with the idea this could resemble the good stuff is just mean because it isn't even close.) Nope, this is just trying to get the same flavoring in a different form. You may remember a few months ago I had a post regarding how intricate I thought toothbrushes were getting and wondered if we have reached the tipping point where we just started adding stuff on for the sake of adding and not trying to actually improve an item. With lasagna soup we may have reached the same apex when it comes to food.]
Look, I think it is pretty obvious to the people who know me that I am not a particularly adventurous eater. I know what I like and I know how to make those items well. However, I am also not so self-absorbed that I can't understand why people wouldn't like a little variety in life. I just think when we do this experimenting matters. It used to be that people were clamoring to find their dead relatives' recipes so they could try and make something which tasted just like it did when they were kids. Instead they're taking their recipes and mixing in a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't belong. Also, this is when I would remind you that it is impossible to un-mix items. So, rather than add a whole bunch of random ingredient to experiment with things which are already tried and true favorites, just leave them be. If you really feel like people may want some additional flavoring than put that in a bowl to the side and have them mix it in themselves. If they won't put in the effort than they clearly don't really want it in the first place. My point is that Thanksgiving is not the time to get crazy. It's pretty simple to me - if you look at the standard Thanksgiving table you see a mix which has been perfected through years of experimenting and tweaking. I know the idea of falling into a repetitive food rut can make you want to shake loose and try something new but messing with the traditions which have been established for Thanksgiving are just crazy. Go crazy with your baking on a holiday that allows for it - such as the Fourth of July - and leave my mashed potatoes alone.
For reasons I can not explain, people seem to think Thanksgiving is the perfect time to start messing with foods. Recipes go unchanged for almost the entire year and then suddenly people just start going crazy with the items which have worked well for the last 11 months. Look, I'm not above this myself because as I mentioned I was looking for something different to make this year. The difference is that I'm looking to make something I have never had before if I find a recipe that works for me, that is going to be how I make that item until the end of my days. These people have recipes that are already crowd favorites and are changing them just for the sake of change and I've always felt that is a waste of time. I know change is how society moves forward but let's not go overboard here - these people aren't trying to make us safer or cure a disease, they aren't doing anything more than trying to look more sophisticated than the rest of us. I can almost understand the people who work for food publications trying out new ways to make old favorites because, frankly, they have to justify their existence. As it is they already have the very strange job which involves, much like movie critics, having a large enough ego to assume that everyone is going to like food exactly the same way as they do, even though the odds of that happening are impossible. If they just rolled out the same 15-20 recipes which are the most popular around the world they will be out of a job after six months, so sitting in a kitchen and trying to imagine a new twist on an old favorite could just be a way to look busy. All I am saying is that just because they came up with it, that doesn't mean we have to follow their lead.
[Sidebar: While browsing around these websites I have also noticed another food trend appears to be making things which are supposed to taste like other things. For example, everyone is raving about this new lasagna soup, which apparently tastes exactly like the real thing. Well, you know what else tastes like lasagna? Regular lasagna and it is not like it is exotic or particularly hard to make. I have never been eating lasagna and wishing it had a broth. I mean, I would be all for this constant messing around if someone out there had figured out a way to make ground beef taste like Kobe beef but that is not what is going on. This is just messing around for the sake of being difficult. They aren't even doing these new recipes as a way for them to be slightly healthier. Even though I think trying that would be a waste of time because nothing tastes as good as the real thing, at least that I could understand. (I find the whole "healthy" version of food to be cruel anyway. You ever have "sugar free" chocolate? I get what they are trying to do but I'd rather we just tell diabetics they can't have chocolate anymore. Teasing them with the idea this could resemble the good stuff is just mean because it isn't even close.) Nope, this is just trying to get the same flavoring in a different form. You may remember a few months ago I had a post regarding how intricate I thought toothbrushes were getting and wondered if we have reached the tipping point where we just started adding stuff on for the sake of adding and not trying to actually improve an item. With lasagna soup we may have reached the same apex when it comes to food.]
Look, I think it is pretty obvious to the people who know me that I am not a particularly adventurous eater. I know what I like and I know how to make those items well. However, I am also not so self-absorbed that I can't understand why people wouldn't like a little variety in life. I just think when we do this experimenting matters. It used to be that people were clamoring to find their dead relatives' recipes so they could try and make something which tasted just like it did when they were kids. Instead they're taking their recipes and mixing in a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't belong. Also, this is when I would remind you that it is impossible to un-mix items. So, rather than add a whole bunch of random ingredient to experiment with things which are already tried and true favorites, just leave them be. If you really feel like people may want some additional flavoring than put that in a bowl to the side and have them mix it in themselves. If they won't put in the effort than they clearly don't really want it in the first place. My point is that Thanksgiving is not the time to get crazy. It's pretty simple to me - if you look at the standard Thanksgiving table you see a mix which has been perfected through years of experimenting and tweaking. I know the idea of falling into a repetitive food rut can make you want to shake loose and try something new but messing with the traditions which have been established for Thanksgiving are just crazy. Go crazy with your baking on a holiday that allows for it - such as the Fourth of July - and leave my mashed potatoes alone.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
No Place To Hide
For years I maintained that the unofficial slogan for the internet should have been, "Every answer you could ever want... Just, please, don't read the comments." By now everyone knows the comment section of your average internet site is useless - filled with homophobic or racist comments as well as conspiracy theories even your senile grandparents wouldn't believe. Of course the only saving grace about these comments is that they were so poorly worded and spelled that most of the time you couldn't really be sure who they were trying to insult. It was the worst of humanity on display for all to see and it was like this because of the anonymous nature of most commenting formats. All you had to do was leave an email address which would not be made public and you could unleash whatever pent up anger was inside of you, totally free of any repercussions. But in the last year we have finally seen a tipping point. Slowly but surely websites have begun to do away with anonymous commenting on stories, requiring you to link your comments to your Facebook page, putting your face and actual name alongside your comments (apparently they don't think those of us without Facebook pages have anything interesting to say). While not a perfect system it is still better than nothing and many sites saw the number of crazy or nonsensical comments begin to drop off. It must be going pretty well because one of the biggest sites for terrible comments is falling in line, as this afternoon YouTube announced it will be getting rid of anonymous comments.
For reason I can't explain, YouTube has some of the worst commenters across the entire internet as 90% of them were negative and filled with hate. Obviously you are always going to find at least one person who doesn't like something about a video, the problem is that no one on that site appears to understand the art of the appropriate response. They either love the video more than the home movie of the day the brought their child home or hate it as if it was Nazi propaganda and if anyone had the gall to disagree with their stance it meant they should die in a fire. If that wasn't bad enough, what always drove me crazy about YouTube comments is that they very rarely have anything to do with the video in question. It didn't matter how innocent the video in question was, the comments beneath it were always the same: the first person would like it, the second would hate it with the fire of a thousands suns, the third would say something homophobic, the fourth person would say "First" (because apparently being the first to comment on a video is a badge of honor), the fifth would blame Obama, the sixth would try and reason with the second person, who would invariable come back with yet another homophobic comment, the seventh would tell us all to find God and the eighth person would like everyone reading to know about an awesome work from home opportunity they recently came across, then the pattern would repeat depending on how long the video had been posted. You know, writing it out like that the question becomes less about why YouTube would see a need to re-work its commenting policy and more about why they waited so long to do so.
Now because this is the internet there are people are complaining about the change, saying it is an issue of free speech and arguing that the First Amendment gives them the right to say anything they want, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. Obviously, these people are idiots because no one is saying they can't still spew their hate-speak, only that they will now be held accountable for it. There is nothing in the Constitution about being able to maintain privacy while threatening to murder a person simply because they don't agree with you that Dane Cook is the best comedian alive today. And if you don't want people to know this is how you feel about an issue I would contend that is because you know you are in the wrong. It's an interesting way to weed out the fakers in the crowd as the people who really believe strongly in their position don't hide who they are. Besides, there is nothing which says the Facebook account linked to YouTube has to be real. Social media experts have estimated that there are tens of millions of "burner" Facebook accounts created by spammers and con-artists to either build up a legitimate business or just mess with other civilians. Unfortunately there is nothing which can be done about that, which is why there is nothing stopping any of these commenters from creating a fake account and continuing to do what they do. I think YouTube and other websites which have engaged in this new commenting system are just hoping that these kind of people are too lazy to go through all that work just to leave a comment designed to get a reaction out of one or two people. I would like to think those sites are right, but that also assumes these anonymous users have better things to do with their time, which they clearly do not.
Some have said this will cause them to leave YouTube forever but the problem for them is that they really don't have an alternative if they still want to watch videos. Sure, there are a few other video sites, but nothing can rival YouTube's library. This is what happens when the only game in town decides to change the rules - you either follow along or you simply don't get to play. (I also think many of these people feel as though they are infamous and are in for one hell of a shock when no one notices they are gone.) Besides, for all the belly-aching and threats to never use YouTube again I actually think these internet trolls are relieved. I don't care how much pleasure they get from that moment when a person is gullible enough to fall for one of their provocative comments, at some point these trolls have to get tired of repeating the same old shtick. It's human nature to get tired of repetition, which is why even famous insult comedians occasionally want to take the night off and just tell some standard jokes. As I said these comments had fallen into a predictable pattern, so by now I have to figure these faceless people working behind the scenes without actually getting any recognition for what they think is a brilliant joke are annoyed with having to keep it up. If anything, they should be happy these websites have developed a new commenting system because it will force them to come up and with new and even more interesting ways to insult random strangers or denigrate an entire race of people. And if they aren't clever enough to manage that, well, there is always Reddit.
For reason I can't explain, YouTube has some of the worst commenters across the entire internet as 90% of them were negative and filled with hate. Obviously you are always going to find at least one person who doesn't like something about a video, the problem is that no one on that site appears to understand the art of the appropriate response. They either love the video more than the home movie of the day the brought their child home or hate it as if it was Nazi propaganda and if anyone had the gall to disagree with their stance it meant they should die in a fire. If that wasn't bad enough, what always drove me crazy about YouTube comments is that they very rarely have anything to do with the video in question. It didn't matter how innocent the video in question was, the comments beneath it were always the same: the first person would like it, the second would hate it with the fire of a thousands suns, the third would say something homophobic, the fourth person would say "First" (because apparently being the first to comment on a video is a badge of honor), the fifth would blame Obama, the sixth would try and reason with the second person, who would invariable come back with yet another homophobic comment, the seventh would tell us all to find God and the eighth person would like everyone reading to know about an awesome work from home opportunity they recently came across, then the pattern would repeat depending on how long the video had been posted. You know, writing it out like that the question becomes less about why YouTube would see a need to re-work its commenting policy and more about why they waited so long to do so.
Now because this is the internet there are people are complaining about the change, saying it is an issue of free speech and arguing that the First Amendment gives them the right to say anything they want, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. Obviously, these people are idiots because no one is saying they can't still spew their hate-speak, only that they will now be held accountable for it. There is nothing in the Constitution about being able to maintain privacy while threatening to murder a person simply because they don't agree with you that Dane Cook is the best comedian alive today. And if you don't want people to know this is how you feel about an issue I would contend that is because you know you are in the wrong. It's an interesting way to weed out the fakers in the crowd as the people who really believe strongly in their position don't hide who they are. Besides, there is nothing which says the Facebook account linked to YouTube has to be real. Social media experts have estimated that there are tens of millions of "burner" Facebook accounts created by spammers and con-artists to either build up a legitimate business or just mess with other civilians. Unfortunately there is nothing which can be done about that, which is why there is nothing stopping any of these commenters from creating a fake account and continuing to do what they do. I think YouTube and other websites which have engaged in this new commenting system are just hoping that these kind of people are too lazy to go through all that work just to leave a comment designed to get a reaction out of one or two people. I would like to think those sites are right, but that also assumes these anonymous users have better things to do with their time, which they clearly do not.
Some have said this will cause them to leave YouTube forever but the problem for them is that they really don't have an alternative if they still want to watch videos. Sure, there are a few other video sites, but nothing can rival YouTube's library. This is what happens when the only game in town decides to change the rules - you either follow along or you simply don't get to play. (I also think many of these people feel as though they are infamous and are in for one hell of a shock when no one notices they are gone.) Besides, for all the belly-aching and threats to never use YouTube again I actually think these internet trolls are relieved. I don't care how much pleasure they get from that moment when a person is gullible enough to fall for one of their provocative comments, at some point these trolls have to get tired of repeating the same old shtick. It's human nature to get tired of repetition, which is why even famous insult comedians occasionally want to take the night off and just tell some standard jokes. As I said these comments had fallen into a predictable pattern, so by now I have to figure these faceless people working behind the scenes without actually getting any recognition for what they think is a brilliant joke are annoyed with having to keep it up. If anything, they should be happy these websites have developed a new commenting system because it will force them to come up and with new and even more interesting ways to insult random strangers or denigrate an entire race of people. And if they aren't clever enough to manage that, well, there is always Reddit.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Not Again
Towards the end of last week I started to hear rumors that the first big snowstorm was heading this way, scheduled to arrive either Wednesday or Thursday and if it was as bad as predicted it would drop well over a foot of the white stuff as it passed through. After last winter a foot of snow is hardly the kind of thing to get excited about anymore but it did serve as a reminder that I should probably get around to winterizing some items around the house. Normally I try to put this task off for as long as I can because Fall is my favorite season and in my mind winterizing the yard is like waving the white flag at Winter. Sadly, it turns out I still don't have a Weather Dominator, which means don't really get a vote. The cold is coming whether I want it to or not, so better to be ready than play catch-up. Plus I have to admit we've been pretty lucky this year with not having a major hurricane come through so I can't complain too much and this has to get done sooner or later, which is why Saturday seemed as good a day as any. With that in mind I headed out to the shed to collect the few items I need to make sure the snow doesn't mess with the things I can't get bring inside, specifically the A/C unit, deck chairs and grill. The good news is that I already have covers for all these things and I remember exactly where they are. The entire thing should only have taken me about 15 minutes and given me peace of mind for the rest of the day. Just so we're clear - getting the covers out and secured in place was all I wanted to do. The damn universe had other plans for me.
You may remember about a week ago when I went out to the shed and discovered a tail sticking out of the electrical box which held a light switch and your standard outlet. Part of the face plate covering that box had cracked and fallen away, which allowed a mouse to climb in and electrocute itself. At time time I was very confused at to what a mouse could possible find interesting about that particular area of the shed, especially to the extreme it was willing to die to get in there. Eventually I just pulled the mouse out and threw it into the woods then ended the post by proclaiming that I was going to get a new face plate so this never happened again. The thing is that never happened because it really wasn't in my plans. Not to get too inside baseball on you, dear readers, but not everything you read here is 100% factual. Sorry, but I have to confess that sometimes I end my posts with a joke or make an absurd declaration for the sake of wordplay and that was one of those times. Sure, if I was in a hardware store and remembered to wander over to that section I may eventually find a replacement face but I didn't need to go to one this week and I wasn't about to make a special trip for it. That would be silly because there was no great rush as this situation was so absurd it would obviously never happen again. No need to inconvenience myself over the actions of a solitary and stupid rodent. Those words were echoing through my brain as I found myself once again staring at the same cracked face plate with half of a different dead mouse hanging out of it.
If finding one dead mouse in your electrical box is an accident I can't imagine what two should be considered. The only good part about this particular dead mouse is that it was much fatter than the last one, so while the first one had crawled all the way in and eventually gotten itself wedged under the light switch, this one only made it about halfway before it met its demise, which also made it easier to remove (and allowed me to know right away it was not a snake). Also, I often say it only takes me one attempt at something before I consider myself an expert, so removing it was old hat. I just grabbed the same massive pair of pliers which I used last time, grabbed it by the tail and yanked away. It came out without much fanfare (though it also had a couple of random spiders attached to it) and I tossed it into the same area of the woods. At least this way if he came looking for his buddy they ultimately wound up in the same resting place. (Though it does make me wonder just how many more are in that search party.) Honestly, the entire thing left me more annoyed than anything. With that done I turned my attention back to the box to see what they could possibly find so damn fascinating about it. My first thought is that they are attracted by the warmth it gives off but in holding my hand up against it I didn't feel any heat, so there has to be something else which is causing the mice to be drawn to this thing like bugs to the blue zapper. Of course, since I was not interested in patenting this new, deadlier form of mouse trap I have stumbled upon my bigger desire was to fix this problem once and for all.
I removed what was left of the old plate, prepared to find anything behind it - a mouse den complete with babies, hoards of seeds, gold bullion - but was only met with the standard tangle of wires. What was interesting, though, was discovering that the faces on the outlet were in just as bad of shape as the face plate which was covering them. When I finally removed the last screws most of the operation fell apart in my hands. I don't know if this was the work of mice or it had been damaged by something else, but the half of the face plate I had left on last week was pretty much the only thing keeping the outlet side of this box together. The good news is that I have access to a workshop which has all sorts of goodies laying around, including extra electrical outlets. Also, there was a face plate with the configuration I needed attached to an electrical box downstairs. I didn't swap it out last week because I figured there was no need. Besides, I have to look at the outlet in the basement more frequently than the one in the shed and looking at an open outlet would annoy me. But, given what I have found the last two times I have look at the outlet in the shed I figured this was no time to worry about aesthetics. (As evidenced by the fact the outlet is now white, the switch brown and the face plate is black.) Now that the outlet is new and there is no space on face plate big enough for anything to force its way in, the next step will be wiping the box down with peppermint, as apparently mice hate peppermint the way tigers hate cinnamon. It was only after all this was done that I finally got around to putting the covers on the A/C unit, grill and deck chairs, also known as the reason I was in the shed in the first place. All I know is that after doing those unplanned extra tasks, watching the news last night and not seeing a single meteorologist even mention the possibly of snow mid-week may have been the most predictable part of the entire project.
You may remember about a week ago when I went out to the shed and discovered a tail sticking out of the electrical box which held a light switch and your standard outlet. Part of the face plate covering that box had cracked and fallen away, which allowed a mouse to climb in and electrocute itself. At time time I was very confused at to what a mouse could possible find interesting about that particular area of the shed, especially to the extreme it was willing to die to get in there. Eventually I just pulled the mouse out and threw it into the woods then ended the post by proclaiming that I was going to get a new face plate so this never happened again. The thing is that never happened because it really wasn't in my plans. Not to get too inside baseball on you, dear readers, but not everything you read here is 100% factual. Sorry, but I have to confess that sometimes I end my posts with a joke or make an absurd declaration for the sake of wordplay and that was one of those times. Sure, if I was in a hardware store and remembered to wander over to that section I may eventually find a replacement face but I didn't need to go to one this week and I wasn't about to make a special trip for it. That would be silly because there was no great rush as this situation was so absurd it would obviously never happen again. No need to inconvenience myself over the actions of a solitary and stupid rodent. Those words were echoing through my brain as I found myself once again staring at the same cracked face plate with half of a different dead mouse hanging out of it.
If finding one dead mouse in your electrical box is an accident I can't imagine what two should be considered. The only good part about this particular dead mouse is that it was much fatter than the last one, so while the first one had crawled all the way in and eventually gotten itself wedged under the light switch, this one only made it about halfway before it met its demise, which also made it easier to remove (and allowed me to know right away it was not a snake). Also, I often say it only takes me one attempt at something before I consider myself an expert, so removing it was old hat. I just grabbed the same massive pair of pliers which I used last time, grabbed it by the tail and yanked away. It came out without much fanfare (though it also had a couple of random spiders attached to it) and I tossed it into the same area of the woods. At least this way if he came looking for his buddy they ultimately wound up in the same resting place. (Though it does make me wonder just how many more are in that search party.) Honestly, the entire thing left me more annoyed than anything. With that done I turned my attention back to the box to see what they could possibly find so damn fascinating about it. My first thought is that they are attracted by the warmth it gives off but in holding my hand up against it I didn't feel any heat, so there has to be something else which is causing the mice to be drawn to this thing like bugs to the blue zapper. Of course, since I was not interested in patenting this new, deadlier form of mouse trap I have stumbled upon my bigger desire was to fix this problem once and for all.
I removed what was left of the old plate, prepared to find anything behind it - a mouse den complete with babies, hoards of seeds, gold bullion - but was only met with the standard tangle of wires. What was interesting, though, was discovering that the faces on the outlet were in just as bad of shape as the face plate which was covering them. When I finally removed the last screws most of the operation fell apart in my hands. I don't know if this was the work of mice or it had been damaged by something else, but the half of the face plate I had left on last week was pretty much the only thing keeping the outlet side of this box together. The good news is that I have access to a workshop which has all sorts of goodies laying around, including extra electrical outlets. Also, there was a face plate with the configuration I needed attached to an electrical box downstairs. I didn't swap it out last week because I figured there was no need. Besides, I have to look at the outlet in the basement more frequently than the one in the shed and looking at an open outlet would annoy me. But, given what I have found the last two times I have look at the outlet in the shed I figured this was no time to worry about aesthetics. (As evidenced by the fact the outlet is now white, the switch brown and the face plate is black.) Now that the outlet is new and there is no space on face plate big enough for anything to force its way in, the next step will be wiping the box down with peppermint, as apparently mice hate peppermint the way tigers hate cinnamon. It was only after all this was done that I finally got around to putting the covers on the A/C unit, grill and deck chairs, also known as the reason I was in the shed in the first place. All I know is that after doing those unplanned extra tasks, watching the news last night and not seeing a single meteorologist even mention the possibly of snow mid-week may have been the most predictable part of the entire project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)