The news this morning was breathlessly concerned about the "Iranian Threat". It seems (about 80% verified) that Iran sent a 20Kg load by rocket into space. While this would be a very, very small spy satellite, it is the forerunner of more to come. Why the surprise? Oil revenues for all your SUVs means the Iranians have more money than god. And as every Israeli knows, Persians really know how to look after money. But, honestly, that's not whats got me worried.
Its the inconsistency in counting the medals. All the US sites (CNN, NYtimes) all go by total medals won, this puts the US ahead of China by 65 to 61. The European sites (Eurosports, BBC) only count gold medals in the ranking, which puts China far ahead of the US by 35 to 19. The official Olympic Site is politically correct, and allows you to rank by either golds or total (by default the ranking is by golds and China is on top). I think there should be a weighted average, so for example, you should get 3 points for a gold, 2 for a silver and 1 for a bronze. That way, China would currently have 144 points (3*35+13*2+13) and the US would have 124 points (3*19+21*2+25), and the Unites States of Phelps would have (3*8) 24 points and be in seventh or eighth place globally. Who would worry about these things for you, if I don't?
Wet varnish
4 hours ago
1 comment:
there is an element that everyone keep forgetting .
the all important "who give a damn"
lets face it not all fields born the same :
100m freestyle swimming or 100m running has a bit more public interest then lets say ... badminton for women 50-51kg weight division , or dare i say it ? sailing RS:X (yes i know its the only hope we have for medal but try and watch that thing ... they don't move ... at all , and everything is just so random .
so i think you need to add an alpha for each medal with the "who give a damn" factor . then we can evaluate everything correctly !
Post a Comment