Edumacation?... GREs?... Writing samples?... Oh my!

This was a piece of writing I did about 2 months ago when I was preparing for my GRE exams. It was a timed essay on a random topic that they give you, and the result of this particular essay was one I was rather pleased with, so I thought I'd post it for your reading enjoyment. The topic was whether or not technology created lonliness...

"Both the development of technological tools and the uses to which humanity has put them have created modern civilizations in which loneliness is ever increasing."

“Both the development of technological tools and the uses to which humanity has put them have created modern civilizations in which loneliness is ever increasing.” The true veracity of this statement is difficult to judge, because it is difficult to judge the value of personal interactions. What is the panacea for loneliness? Many different people experience loneliness in many different ways, and so their “cure” for loneliness will be different from the next person. So how has technology affected these interactions?

The advent of the internet has spawned countless new methods of interaction; cell phones, wireless internet, internet chat rooms, instant messaging, text messaging. The list goes on. What is the value of all these interactions? Teenagers with 200 people listed on their instant messenger window would hardly be considered the constituents of a healthy, deep, and meaningful relationships. Yet the potential for interaction itself is virtually limitless. Perhaps the act of interaction itself is more valuable than the depth of interaction.

While it can be argued that many of these devices have engendered a state of perpetual “superficial” interaction, some of these devices may be more engaging than meets the eye. For example, MMOs (massively multiplayer online games) allow thousands of users to interact via an “avatar” which they control. These avatars have many of the same aspects of human nature. They are able to maintain personal space, they are able to speak and interact with other avatars, they are able to ignore, as well as to turn around and walk away. These particular programs are, in every aspect, a true “virtual reality”. These games allow users to interact on a level which is as close to reality as one can get without actually being there. Web logs, more commonly known as “blogs”, allow users to post diaries for other to read and comment on. These sites allow users to interact with other users on a very personal level. So despite the lack of “face-to-face” interaction which is an impossibility for these programs, the personality and ownership which these interactions take on mimics reality very closely.

But internet technologies are not the only advancements which have led to these lack of “personal” interactions. Automated bank tellers, automatic operators for large companies, and self service quick-pay gas stations have all reduced the need for human to human interaction, replacing it with human to machine interaction. Much technology has obviated the need for a human operator, cutting costs, and maximizing efficiency, both for the company and for the user. Yet one must truly ask oneself if these sorts of interactions were fulfilling in any way. Would more interactions between humans and humans across the countertop to purchase snack items, as opposed to human and machine interaction, be more personally rewarding than flashing a quick-pay card across a reader? Surely the panacea for loneliness does not reside within these ultimately superficial interactions.

The human race is experiencing a technological renaissance; one that has truly changed the face of the world. And as evidenced from the past, the human race will adapt, just as it always has. Telephones, internet, instant messaging, web logs, and video conferencing (just to name a few) have not changed the game, they have only changed the rules. While technology has certainly obviated the need for many face-to-face interactions, either superficial or meaningful, it has not placed barriers on them. Quite the opposite. Technology has made the extraordinary into the prosaic; what was once impossible, such as conferencing with a relative overseas, has now become commonplace and affordable. Anonymity has allowed those diffident people to become gallant heroes and conquerors; it has provided them with power and influence which they would never have in the “real” world. Has technology created civilizations where loneliness is endemic? No. While many former person to person interactions have been made obsolete, technology has not barred these doors completely. Technology has only stacked them in boxes and placed them in storage; always available, but no longer necessary. The rules of the game have indeed changed, but the game itself remains the same.

Quote of the week (Oct. 28, 2007)

I'm not young enough to know everything.

- Oscar Wilde

Commercials

To say that commercials are an annoyance is hardly newsworthy. To say that some are blatantly idiotic, pandering, or just lame is old hat. There are certainly some commercials out there that are funny, eye-catching, and some that might even be considered artistic, but the vast majority can be thrown on the commercial trash heap that is piling higher and higher with advertisement filth that seems to be getting worse and worse.

And now commercials seem to have hit a new low. Just when we think they couldn't get any dumber, the advert execs of the world shock us with their numbingly dim-witted attempt at info-tainment. Now, for those of you who live outside of Canada (and possibly even Ontario, depending on how widespread this latest piece of garbage is), you may not know what I'm talking about, so I will walk you through it. Believe me, it won't take long.

As a brief introduction for those of you not well aquainted with the world of hockey and the NHL, Joe Thornton and Martin St. Louis could be considered amongst Canada's top players, and an argument could certainly be made for being amongst the top 10 players in the world. This particular latest Vector commercial stars the two aforementioned players skating on to a dark rink wearing white Vector jerseys with the Vector crest emblazoned prominently on the chest. Cue hard guitar rock music as 20 - 30 nameless skaters in black jerseys and black helmets with black visors covering the tops of their faces skate onto the ice to face them. Martin St. Louis and Joe Thornton look at each other briefly before skating towards the mob...

Now, at this point, being two of possibly the best players in the world, you might think that the commercial might take advantage of their incredible puck-handling skill, skating, or passing ability, much like Kellogg's did with their previous commercial for Frosted Flakes, which also prominently featuring hockey with Tony the Tiger. In the commercial for Frosted Flakes, nameless kids were featured showing off great little stick tricks, such as picking the puck off the ice with their sticks, whirling and twirling around, and making "eye-popping" dekes.

Back to the Vector commercial. Martin St. Louis and Joe Thornton are skating towards the mob, with hard guitar rock music playing in the background. There is a menacing voice which states, "Before the hits...", at which point the scene changes to a black skater flying into the glass and smashing it in slow motion, "Before the moves..." Scene changes to Joe Thornton puttin ghis head down and ducking forward as Martin St. Louis rolls over him back to back. "Before the goals..." Scene changes behind the net of "team black" where St. Louis simply shoots the puck and scores high gloves side. "You have to get the gear!" Scene changes to Martin St. Louis and Joe Thornton looking at each other, then skating off in opposite directions. And that's it. The end (of course, followed by some shots of a box of Vector cereal, etc.)

Now, my memory of the narrator may not be perfect, but I'm pretty sure I haven't any major artistic details. My first thought, when I saw this commercial, was, "???". The second time I saw it, I watched more carefully, to see if I had missed anything. The third time I saw it, I thought, "What the fuck?!"

Now, I'm no advertising executive, but if you're going to hire two of the best hockey players in the world, shouldn't you exploit their skills a little more effectively? What the hell?! All they did was duck down and roll over the guy's back! Any friggin body could have done that?? Why the hell did you go out and hire Joe friggin Thornton and Martin friggin St. Louis???? They didn't even have any speaking lines!!! They didn't even deke around a single one of those menacing hockey ninjas!!! Their idea of an eye-popping deke was to duck down and roll over the other guy's back!!!! WHAT THE HELL???!!! Pay me 10,000 dollars, and I'll do that for you right now! I don't even need a second player to do it! I'll just do it over top of some inanimate object! God DAMMIT!! The sheer nonsensical "ludicosity" of it hurts my brain. It's so dumb, it just made me completely make up a word to try to describe it. Why the hell would you go out and hire two of the best hockey players in the world, and then make them do something so idiotic??

Ow... my brain hurts. Burnsy.... out.

Quote of the week (Oct. 21, 2007)

Immigants, I KNEW it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!

-Moe Szyslak on Proposition 24 (deporting illegal immigrants)

Leafs vs. Sabres

For those of you Toronto Maple Leaf fans out there who watched the Leafs/Sabres game (Mon., Oct. 15), you will surely be able to tell me who netted the game winning goal. Yes, indeed it was Bryan McCabe, the "7 million dollar man". Now, we all know that Bryan McCabe, who was recently (and incomprehensibly) selected for the Canadian olympic team, and also re-signed by the Toronto Maple Leafs to a 5-year, $7 mil/year deal, doesn't have the softest hands in the league. We all know that he gives up odd man rushes, even when he's playing the power play. And we all know that he can't really play defence, despite the fact that he plays the blueline, and he's listed as a "defenceman" on the team roster. But all Leaf fans were satisfied with the fact that he could at least put the puck in the net on a relatively consistent basis. They just didn't realize it would be THEIR net. Yes, that's right. Bryan McCabe, in a wild panic in the last 3 seconds of overtime, cleared the puck into his OWN net to win the game for the Buffalo Sabres. *clap....... clap....... .... clap..... .. ......*

So what do the Leafs do now? Winless in their last three games, they play defence like a group of children playing ball hockey, and their offence is now revolving around the red-hot Nik Antropov, who's played like shite the last 8-9 seasons and been rightly crucified for it by the Toronto media. Do they fire head coach Paul Maurice? Do they swallow their pride and embrace the outcast pariah, Nik Antropov? Or do they take team of players that lack any real skill, talent, or potential, and teach them to play defence by committee? There's an old saying in the comp. sci. industry that goes, "garbage in, garbage out". You can't make something out of nothing, and nothing is exactly what th Leafs have.

In the interim

I know it's been a while since my last post. I'm currently in the middle of a review of the Canadian education system, which was inspired by a conversation I had with a friend a few weeks back. However, finishing said post has become a difficult task. Every time I've tried, I didn't like the conclusions that I was coming to, and so started over. Over the past few weeks, it's been a topic that has been a bit of a struggle to finish, as I've come to some interesting conclusions about our system.

Since that post is a work in process, I thought I'd just post a little something in the interim. I've had a few interesting thoughts flying through my head, some of note, others not so much so. I think the more significant ones are deserving of their own topic, and so will post them at a later time. In the meantime, it's the start of a new hockey season. A time when hockey fans and pundits alike can come together and celebrate the start of a new cycle.

So what are the soothsayers saying this year? Many of you don't really care, but since I'm such a great fan of the game, I'm going to discuss it anyway. I had originally intended to breakdown each of the six Canadian teams, but I've decided after a time that it would be of little value. Hockey fans all have their own ideas, and changing their minds can be an arduous task indeed. Instead, I've decided to pick at the major points, and perhaps make some predictions, so that when they actually come true, I can say, "I told you so."

Of course, we can't discuss hockey without discussing the two largest markets in Canada; Toronto and Montreal. Of course, Leafs and Habs fans are loathe to say anything negative about their teams, and if ever asked the question, "How do you think they'll do this year", will unerringly respond with the same response they give every year: "We're goin' all the way, baby!" Of course, for Leafs and Habs fans, that statement has become increasingly less zealous, and increasingly more unsure. And perhaps for good reason. The Leafs have missed the post-season the last two years, and the Habs have missed the post-season last year, and were removed rather unceremoniously the previous two before that. Who could forget Alexei Kovalev's "broken hand", allowing the Boston player (I believe it was Brad Boyes) to walk in unmolested to score the series clinching goal.

So what is it about Toronto and Montreal that have made them so unsuccessful the last few years, and will that trend continue this year? The simple answer to those questions is "shit management" and "yes". While John Ferguson Jr. has made minor improvements over the cesspool that Pat Quinn left behind, the improvements made by Leaf management overall have been marginal at best. While the removal of Robert Reichel and Michal Renberg was one of the best moves they could have made, their refusal to address their immediate problems (or future problems) have been concerning. Additions of mediocre players whilst trading away future prospects has been the downfall of Leaf nation, and we continue to watch as the house they have built on sand continues to crumble.

To perhaps be more positive about their future, the Leafs have, after about 5 years after the departure of Alexander Mogilny, finally decided to give Mats Sundin a winger who can score in Jason Blake. Is he the panacea for their team? Certainly not. While he may prove to be a valuable addition to the top line, and a fine compliment to Sundin, a cursory glance at the Leaf depth chart will immediately tell you what side of the playoff berth they will land. Teams lacking even a set of top six forwards and top four defenceman rarely make it into the playoffs, and while Raycroft and Toskala are both highly skilled goaltenders, the jury is still out on their long-term consistency.

And while they lack depth past their top line, their situation on defence may be even more dire. While scoring from the blueline is always important, a defenceman is, after all is said and done, a defenceman. Bryan "the pylon" McCabe, while able to put up impressive numbers, lacks anything resembling defensive awareness, and his long time partner, Tomas Kaberle, while slightly better, is still less than defensively sound. Their largest defenceman, Hall Gill, is slow and ineffective in containing faster skaters, regardless of size, which leaves the bulk of the defensive consistency on 3rd pairing defenceman Ian White, which is needless to say, not good.

While the Leafs have an outside chance of making the playoffs (and when I say outside, I mean "out the door, down the street, around the corner, and over the bridge"), not only are their short-term prospects suspect, but their is a rather dark shadow lying over their long-term future as well. Being in a division with the Buffalo Sabres and the Ottawa Senators, teams who have both taken steps to secure their future, only makes things that much more difficult. Unless Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment decide to hire someone who actually knows something about hockey, and decide to make a major change in the team's philosophy, capturing a Stanley Cup for the Leafs will be much akin to trying to climb a greased slope with a pitch of about 60 degrees on bare hands and knees.

Tune in next time for... The Montreal Canadiens: Dynasty or Disaster? Dun dun duuunnnnnnn.....

Burnsy.... out.

The Greatest Ever...?

In honour of Roger Federer's latest victory, and fourth straight US Open championship, I thought I'd bring up an issue recently brought forth by a good friend of mine. Of all sports and otherwise ¨athletic ventures¨ who is the greatest athelete in the world? Of course, this question is one which will draw many different opinions from many different people, and it would be difficult to remain objective, particularly coming from places where coverage of different sports varies, so the issue is fairly open to discussion. However, all that being said, in my personal opinion, there is one man who stands above all the others in terms of complete dominance in every facet of his game.

I don't think that anyone can deny the fact that Roger Federer, who is now chasing Pete Sampras' record of 14 Major titles, is talented. However, I am going to take it a step further, and try to say that Roger Federer is so dominant, he may just be the greatest athlete this world has ever seen. So what is it exactly that sets him apart from the likes of Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemiuex, Pete Sampras, Tiger Woods, or Michael Jordan (or perhaps even Mike Tyson, as someone once pointed out, justifiably or not)? Where might one even begin to tackle such an encompassing argument as this? One might think that in order to make a proper comparison, one might have need of a greater knowledge of sports statistics than I currently possess. However, when making a comparison such as this, statistics become a variable indicator, as different equipment, different rules, and different accomplishments in different sports start to cloud the waters of a pond that was clear as glass moments before. If a given sport has a "mercy rule" (for example) that a team may only win by 5 points, regardless of how dominant an athlete is, his/her true greatness will never be illustrated by those statistics, only indicated. That is, what makes an athlete truly great is not the numbers they are able to put on the board, respective of the other players, but rather the ability to adapt and dominate over his/her peers, regardless of the rules of the game, the opponents played, or the equipment used; this is a trait not easily measured by numbers. Greatness is something more intangible; something that can be "felt", not only by the opposing players, but by the people watching the event. Not soley the ability to control the flow of the game using athletic ability, but to mentally dominate the opponent; the amount of palpable fear and utter sense of futility they inspire in their opponents because they (their opponents) realize that no matter what course of action they take, they have already lost.

This is what separates Roger Federer, not only from his inter-sport contemporaries, but from his professional sport (as well as any other form of sport) peers as well. For example, the comparison between Roger Federer and Pete Sampras has been one which tennis pundits and aficionados have been hotly contesting ever since Federer's rise into the tennis elite. While possessing many of the same traits as Pete Sampras, such as his devastating passing shots, accurate and consistent baseline game, deft, artistic vollies, and hard, accurate service game, Federer begins to distinguish himself from Sampras (and the rest of the athletic world) in terms of his intellect. While Federer and Sampras have very similar athletic ability, Federer is able to beat his opponents, not only by striking winners, but by seemingly being able to grasp victory from the hands of defeat time and time again. And this is not in reference to his ability to "serve his way out of trouble", as both men possessed this ability, and it is one that relies more on athletic ability than mental ability. The area in which Federer begins to disinguish himself lies in the fact that, while great players are proven in their ability to defeat their opponents, Federer alone possesses the ability to achieve victory by having his opponent lose. That is, while many great athletes are capable of winning, only rare athletes recognize that an opponent's loss can also lead to victory. While these two methods of play may seem similar, they are quite clearly discrete. It is one thing to aggressively and directly cause victory, but it is entirely another to confound and befuddle your opponent into beating themselves. Roger Federer possesses this ability. Much like Muhammed Ali's "rope-a-dope", when it appears that Federer's opponent is close to achieving victory, he is actually skillfully manoevering them into a position where he can snatch the point away, causing frustration, loss of focus, and a feeling of desperate futility.

No other athlete in any sport possesses the combination of mental poise, athletic ability, and intellectual dominance that Federer does. There is no other athlete in the world that possesses such a thorough understanding of his/her game, and such supreme confidence in his/her abilities that it allows them to divert their focus and intensity away from the belief that the sole way to victory is through defeating your opponent. Federer is unique because he understands this; he is able to sense his opponent's frustration like an open wound and key in on it by playing to their weaknesses, each time tearing the wound wider until the opponent can do nothing more than stop the bleeding. Federer understands that a mentally wounded opponent cannot mount an effective offense. His calm and poised exterior belies a ruthless intensity that can be matched be very few others. He is opportunistic in his strikes, and his vicious and unrelenting execution only compounds his opponent's frustration, for the only feeling worse than playing poorly, is having your opponent play to perfection. And Federer plays to perfection almost every time.

There are many different sports with many different players, many of which are very, very good. Some of them are even great. Roger Federer is not a good athlete, and he is not even a great athlete. Roger Federer has reached the realm of the sublime. His skill must be seen to be believed, and the palpable self-doubt he casts on his opponents can be felt simply by looking into their eyes. Whether or not Roger Federer is the greatest athlete ever in any sport may still be up for debate, but the statistics have spoken, and Federer has made his case. The issue of true greatness may be a difficult one to accurately, and "objectively" be described. Perhaps it is one that can only be understood. And perhaps Federer's case is not one that can be accurately or "objectively" examined, only felt. If this is the case, than do it justice. Watch his brilliance for yourself. They say that "nobody is perfect", but Roger Federer is likely as close to perfection as any man will ever come.


Burnsy... out!