If It's Too Cold, Why Did You Go Skiing?

Is it right to complain when you knew exactly what you were getting yourself into?  What I mean is, if the situation was clear to you before it began, and you had a choice, don't you forfeit any right to whine and moan?

Last week I took a bus trip to go skiing.  Everyone chose to go on the trip and paid their money.  At the same time, some people cancelled at the last minute, but were not chastised in any way, or even charged money for the trip.  Almost all of them (I would guess that in fact it was each and every one of them, but I didn't bother taking survey) had a smart phone--certainly all of them had access to a television.  So when the weather report was forecasting a somewhat cold temperature (minus 17 I think) it wasn't really out of the blue.

None of this would have mattered if it didn't change the rules.  What it did was shorten the trip by one hour before it even begun.  Fearing the cold, despite wearing some rather expensive thermal gear, many people grumbled and got the trip ending changed.  Of course this was decided before anyone got on the slopes or even tried to cope with the cold.

Had I not wanted to ski, or fallen, or been having a miserable day, I wouldn't have tried to get everyone to leave early.  I would have gone to the lodge to stay warm and waited.  If I had felt I was too cold, I would have either not gone on the trip, or waited in the warm lounge.  At the very least I would have set a midday meeting before making any of these decisions.

As it was, most of the people who lobbied for early release arrived late for the bus.  I guess they were enjoying themselves skiing, despite the cold.

Sports, not Distractions

Sports on TV are fantastic, especially now in High Definition.  You would think I have nothing to complain about, no reason to rant, no frustrations to vent at all.  Sadly, you'd be wrong.  When it gets right down to it, there is too much stuff on the screen.

Don't get me wrong, I like information, and stats, and other relevant stuff.  My thing is, I don't need it all the time.  I don't need a tickertape running below or above the action.  I don't need to know the score all the time.  I have a pretty good memory, so I wouldn't mind being updated every couple of minutes as opposed to constantly.

Is this so much to ask?

Last night, on Hockey Night in Canada, they were promoting the second screen.  That means you should have your laptop (or most likely tablet or smart phone) opened up and web surfing while watching the game.  Okay, multi-tasking I get it.

However, aren't they really telling us that the game isn't exciting and you should divide your attention between two screens?  Aren't they just hitting us with two screens to show commercials on?  Are you falling for it?

When I look at Europe, with sponsors names being bigger than the team crest I am saddened.  When I look at North America where every power play, every penalty, every face off is "brought to you by..." some sponsor, I am saddened.  Even going to the game is no respite from the barrage of advertising and mostly irrelevant information.  Of course fellow patrons spend most of their time on their smart phones, so they might not notice how many things are taking away from the game.

I predict in the future:

Golf balls will have sponsorship labels on them (of course we will be able to follow them as they fly through the air and down the course)

Lacing up skates will be brought to you by Tim Hortons.

Players heart rates during games will be on screen for everyone to see.

Even seat part of your seat will have an ad on it.

Toilet paper in the men's room (and ladies' room as well) will have ads on them.

The screen will be even more cluttered with stats like shot velocity, basketball rpm, tennis ball wear, bathroom break elapsed time counters, and skate sharpness reports.

You may think I am overreacting (and I am) but my bleak version of the future probably isn't that far away.

I long for the simple beauty of the game.

Tales of the Lazy

 

 

What if technology is too smart for someone's brain?  Today's smartphones put all kinds of information within easy reach, but does that matter if you don't reach for it.  That old question of whether a tree falling in the forest makes any sound if there is no one to hear it kind of applies.  Having all the information has no effect if you don't ask the question.

Several of my students confided in me recently that they wouldn't have come here (Canada) to study if they had known what the weather was going to be like.  (Of course, we were working on third conditional sentences, so perhaps they were just making a joke....perhaps....honestly, their facial expressions conveyed that there was some truth to their sentences--but I digress)  Several students did, in fact, make this assertion.  This is nothing new to me because I hear it every year.  However, I paused to reflect because every single student has a smartphone.  Every student can find obscure bits of trivia rather quickly.  My only question was, why didn't they know about the weather?

When I went abroad, now almost twenty years ago, I was armed only with a Lonely Planet guidebook, a look at an atlas and a few pamphlets from the Japanese Consulate (which contained some fabulously out of date photos even then--imagine how old they look now) I didn't have the opportunity to look up anything on the internet.  I read that book (and those brochures) cover to cover.  The truth is, nothing can compare to being there, but I did the best I could.  The funny thing is, I think I was better prepared than my students, who seem surprised at so many things.

I keep forgetting to ask them how they prepared for their trip.  Maybe I am afraid that they will answer honestly, that is to say, they really didn't prepare.  I am reaching that conclusion on my own anyway.  They can find every variation of the Harlem Shake known to man, but couldn't find out that it snows in Canada in the winter?  Seems too unbelievable to be true.  Sadly, it is. 

If I had to guess, they probably don't look up anything until it is staring them in the face.  I have this image of my students landing at the airport, and then having to enter the following words in the search box.  "Toronto, white stuff on ground, cold" and seeing what Google tells them.  You'd think that some of that might have come up when packing.

If I have said it once, I've said it a thousand times.  Smartphones, don't make smart people.

Smart Phone. Smart Owner?

I was on the bus the other day, minding my own business, overhearing some people talking.  (okay, I wanted to mind my own business, but they were sitting right next to me and talking very loudly)  What really caught my attention, other than tales of drunkenness, was that one of them claimed his cell phone bill was more than 200 dollars.

More than 200 dollars!  Is that really possible?  Was he calling the International Space Station?

Granted, we are talking about a smart phone, so this bill includes some sort of data..... but still.  Is everybody out there running up these whopping phone bills?  Are all of you paying hundreds of dollars for the convenience of sending text messages, and checking twitter messages?  (Couple this with the cost of some of these smart phones, at least I can understand why we call the phones smart......)

Honestly, I am not a big fan of cell phones.  I am not unaware of their advantages.  I am also not unaware of their coolness factor.  My problem is less with them and more with the owners.  Is the information being conveyed really worth hundreds of dollars?  Is what you have to say, and who you have to say it to, really worth so much money?  Just asking.