 |
|
|
| After finding out Michelle Kwan (the skater) fell in the long program, it makes me wonder what I was watching the Olympics for. I've been rooting for Canada, as I always do, but I think I would have given up a Canadian hockey gold if it meant Michelle could have won her gold.
Of course, I doubt Eric Lindros would be too pleased to hear that. But I have to root for my fellow Bruins.
The problem I have with skating is the ordinal scoring system (scores based on scoring rankings instead of the scores themselves). Here's why:
Short program:
- Skater A skates flawlessly, and gets straight 6.0's.
- Skater B skates terribly, and falls 10 times.
- Skater C skates even worse, and falls 15 times.
- The remaining skaters fall 20 times or more.
Long program:
- Skater A skates near perfectly, and gets 16 6.0's, 1 5.8, and 1 5.9.
- Skater B skates near perfectly, and gets 17 6.0's and 1 5.8.
- Skater C skates near perfectly, and gets 17 6.0's and 1 5.9.
- The remaining skaters still fall 20 times or more.
Final medals:
- Skater C gets the gold, despite falling 15 times in the short.
- Skater B gets the silver, despite falling 10 times in the short.
- Skater A gets the bronze, despite skating near-perfectly both times.
Clearly this is problematic.
Finally, I think there's a quick tendency to dismiss the anger from the Russians as sour grapes. And while that may be at least partially true, I think the bulk of the reaction is due to the political turmoil that Russia as a nation is experiencing with these Olympics. While here in America the Olympics serve primarily as a fun distraction before the onset of spring, in Russia a fierce battle wages on between the old and new guard, each with decidedly different agendas.
The pride of our nations lie in the balance. They're more concerned with the future of theirs. I guess it's a little understandable if they freak. |
| |
| Alice told me about Googlewhacking today, and I must admit, it's pretty addicting. Silly, but addicting.
So far I've found three Googlewhacks: nutrify gestalt, selectionism bom, and celebratory fenestra. (Actually, I found a few more, but for some reason the Googlewhack site isn't accepting them. Oh well.)
In other news, I recently put this site together (design only) in a few hours, primarily as a favor. I kinda like it. |
| |
| inevitverbial?
Perhaps it's time I proof-read my posts before I make them.
In other news, Dave Thomas, you will be missed. While most commercials make me cringe, I must say that Wendy's ads have never, to my recollection, had that effect. There was always a certain level of class to a Dave Thomas commercial, and how rare a thing is that? |
| |
| I think, barring any sudden revelations, that my holiday shopping is completed.
Of course, this could mark the very first time in 27 Christmas-shopping years that my Christmas Eve may not be marked with a last minute desperation visit to the local 24-hour drug store, where I would inevitverbial singing plastic bass fish, shuffling and reshuffling gifts and recipients in my head until finding a less-than-satisfactory-yet acceptable combination.
I'm sure I overspent.
I'm sure I always overspend. Doesn't everyone?
The part that seems to cause problems is the perennial balancing act of
matching up givers, gifts and receivers.
- Person A and Person B are significant others.
- Person C and Person D are significant others.
- Person A and Person C are best friends.
- Person B and Person D don't really know each other, and only socialize when forced to by Person A and Person C.
So who gets what?
- Person A and Person B must get each other creative and personal gifts (Gifts A-B).
- Person C and Person D must get each other creative and personal gifts (Gifts C-D).
- Person A must get Person C a quality gift (Gift A-C).
- Person A must get Person D a small gift (Gift A-D), but nothing too substantial, lest Person B or Person C get jealous.
- Person C must get Person B a small gift and put both his/her own name and that of Person D on the tag (Gift CD-B).
- Mall A makes a mint.
|
|
|
|
