Facebook? Again?

Yesterday Parade Magazine, the little Sunday paper insert in which Marilyn vos Savant had a column that is now a paragraph or two, had a small article about the cancellation of TV shows. I went to their website to add a comment about "Harry's Law" and "The Firm".

In order to register my comment, I needed to "Click "Agree" to sign in to www.facebook.com using your Yahoo! ID and allow sharing of Yahoo! info."

Another invasion by Facebook! Needless to say my comments will not appear at Parade Magazine's website.

I add this to a number of instances whereby in order to do something one had to join Facebook.

It's beginning to seem like "Big Brother" is really here, and it ain't the government.

Way to go, NBC

I just discovered that NBC has cancelled “the Firm” and “Harry’s Law”.
The only two NBC shows I watched.
Both gone.
The dumbing down of America continues.

Keep Those Conversations Going

So the US Open for golf starts at Olympic Club tomorrow.  The last time it was played there was in 1998. Just as any return to any course, the USGA tweaked it a bit.

One big change is that the first hole, at 530 yards, will play as a par four, while the 17th hole, a par 5, will play as a par five. Definitely seems strange.

In the long run, par on a hole is irrelevant.  The players play 72 holes, could the strokes, and let the chips fall where they may.  But TV and the spectator cannot operate that way. There has to be a means of comparing performances of players at different holes in a round.  Hence the focus on under par, over par, etc.

THE US Open is supposed to be a challenge, and it wouldn’t look good if too many golfers did too well at any given time. By setting par of #1 at 4, it virtually guarantees that most golfers will start their  rounds “over par”. By raising #17 to be a par 5, USGA has upped the number of birdies on the hole, increasing the probability of golfers making an apparent jump up the board as they finish their rounds.

Keep in mind: it really means nothing insofar as the end result is concerned.  But, it means the world insofar as conversations about golf are concerned.   No golfer talks about golf without talking about birdies, pars, bogies, two-putts, three-putts, chip-ins, etc.  How boring it would be if we could only talk about our final score.

Facebook? What's a facebook?

Facebook stock is listed this morning at $27.72. FB hit the market at $38, soared to $41.68 a couple hours later, and then started falling.  What an investment!!!  Just like buying a car. Except that when you buy a car, you buy a tool that allows you to move about. What does Facebook allow you to do?

Facebook made 85% of its money in 2011 from advertising. It's main value is its ability to shove ads in the face of its users. Never having been on Facebook, I cannot speak for the obtrusiveness of the ads, but they must be pretty much in-your-face to generate that much income.

I have heard Facebook described as a "social networking service". Interesting. What is that?  Is it a fancy way to stay in touch without communicating?  I mean, a private conversation can take place in person or on a phone, written communications have the choice of email, snail mail, or texting. Some people still have the ability to talk face-to-face. Most of those are very fast. Exactly what is it that Facebook users claim to need? Is it that they think their lives are so interesting that they need to create an online ongoing biography? In case someone out there is watching?

From what I see around me, the younger people are so into texting that they rarely use phones for speaking, and they will sometimes avoid close contact so they can go home and get on Facebook.

Could it be that Facebook is really the best and latest version of a digital drug?

 At home here we have VOIP telephones, smart phones, 3 laptops, a desktop, a netbook, a Kindle, 2 ipods, an HD TV, a Blu-Ray player, a  home theater system. I might have forgotten something, but I think I can claim that we are not  technologically illiterate. Do I have some hidden need of which I am not aware?

Facebook starts scary. Go to http://www.facebook.com/. You will see a home page that says absolutely nothing about the web site. It does seem to require you to log in to see anything. Not for me. That is, unless you can convince me otherwise.

Bloomberg and soda

In a New York Times article this morning (article here) I read that Mayor Bloomberg is proposing a plan to place limits on purchasing sodas in NYC.  What a guy: in one fell swoop he can give the impression that he is doing something about health (obesity), attempt to legislate intelligence (what it takes to eat smart), and show that he cares about the "little people" (who are more likely to eat fast food and visit movie theaters. 

Will Rogers once said "you can't legislate intelligence and common sense into people."  He knew that almost one hundred years ago, and still we have people who haven't figured it out.

Bloomberg is smart in one way: by placing the burden on the retailer, rather than the consumer who is making the choice what to drink, he makes enforcement easier, while at the same time making the law a non-factor regarding its alleged goal of reducing obesity: the consumer can buy 2 or more smaller sizes, and pour them into his own large container.

The Letter on #17

My last post was my unedited letter to the Times Union. Here is the letter as published. The editor had me rewrite as nobody has since my college days. It was good to go through even though.



TPC at Sawgrass #17

On Friday, May 11, I submitted a letter to the sports section of the Albany Times Union newspaper.in. An edited version appeared in today's TU.  I assume copyright laws may claim that they own the version in the paper.Here is my original version.

On Friday, May 11, Pete Dougherty wrote in his column a rave review of the infamous 17th hole at the TPC at Sawgrass, site of the PGA's Players Championship.

In the column he fails to mention a few key items regarding the hole, and water hazards in general in the game of golf.

First, one of the key ingredients in an enjoyable game of golf is the recovery shot: a bad shot to an awkward location followed by a shot that makes the golfer's game healthy again. A water hazard does not have that allure: the next shot is almost never taken from the location where the previous shot ended, and the true penalty to the average golfer is the amputation of another ball from his spherical entourage. Some of the greatest golf holes in the world involve water, if at all, in its natural state of a meandering creek crossing the course. Not as a manmade golf ball collection agency.

Second, when water does come into play, the Rules of Golf are very specific about what should be done when an errant ball finds the water. It does have a disclaimer sort of rule that courses can use if they have to, that specifies a drop area. In this case the drop area is generally nowhere near the flight of the ball. The standard rule would have the golfer drop his ball keeping the last point of entry into the hazard on a line between the dropping spot and the pin. In this case that would chew up the front of the tee area, which the PGA probably doesn't want. In some cases the drop might have to take place on the other side on the little lake, making for a time-consuming walk, which TV probably doesn't want.

Third, Bubba Watson. What had the golf world amazed, if not stunned, after this year's Master's, was the manner in which Watson won: by a RECOVERY shot from a place that would have most weekend golfer's biting their lips and shaking with dread. A recovery shot. Not a shot, after a penalty, taken from some place the ball hadn't been.

I believe the PGA had some misgivings about #17. For this year they raised the edge of the island so fewer balls that hit land would trickle off into golf disaster.

It's only a question, but do NASCAR fans watch only because of the risk of a crash? If not, why would people suspect that golf fans would?