Bringing credibility to the All-Star game

The official end of the NHL All-Star Game balloting period fits in nicely with the unofficial start of the "why we heck do we need to change the All-Star Game/All-Star Game at all" season.

Personally, I don't really care. The All-Star Game ceased to hold any real attraction for me years ago. I accept it for what it is - a meaningless, zero-intensity game of shinny, albeit one that features many of the most talented hockey players in the world.

That said, I remember what the game used to mean. It was a spectacle and it was special and I looked forward to it each season. Theoretically, that's what it still could be today.

From an NHL marketing perspective, it represents another entry point to sell the game to kids, and those that don't really know much about hockey, to get them hooked or to deepen their bond. As things stand, it's an opportunity that isn't being fully exploited.

In recent years, the hockey community has discussed ad nauseum potential format changes that might re-energize the "mid-season classic." We won't go down that road again right now (personally, I don't really like the North America VS. World thing, with the "US/THEM" feel it gives off...none of that nonsense anymore guys).

One thing to look at is, How the starters are selected because, ironically, the very method they instituted to give ownership to their customers is undermining itself.

The electronic ballot stuffing, or the spectre of it, is a turn-off. While it may not be reflected this year in total number of votes cast, it's impossible to tell since fans can vote as frequently as they like. So when Sidney Crosby "breaks Jaromir Jagr's record" for votes received, it's totally meaningless. Using this method, Chris Simon may break Crosby's record one day (no offense to Chris Simon there).

Here are a few ways they could alter the selection process to lend it more credibility.

1. Have the players vote. Regardless of format they choose to use (East vs. West, North America vs. Europe, Under 28's vs. Over 28's..yes I know that last one sounds real stupid), players would select their side's starting lineup , but would not be permitted to cast ballots for their NHL teammates.

2. Devise a statistical formula to pick the starters. Perhaps it's different for forwards, defensemen and goalies. Maybe each conference's top goal-scorer, assist-collector, plus-minus player and save percentage stopper are all guaranteed spots. Maybe the formula is more complex. Either way, it'd be black and white.... The best player up to that point of the season gets to play in the game.

3. If it remained important to have some fan participation, hold a contest in which two lucky winners got to pick the starters in conjunction with each side's coaching staffs or executive boards. That would draw visitors into websites (that can't be the driving reason behind fan balloting, can it?) and eliminate the risk of a non-worthy player being selected.

4. Move the All-Star games out doors! in my opinion (by it being only my opinion, you're free to disagree with me) these outdoor games have been great! Make them a yearly thing by using them for the All-Star game.. The NHL has already seen how many tickets they can sell to a "regular" or "exibition" game, imagine how many more they can sell with 2 teams full of stars!!!.

I'm sure there are MANY other tweaks, amendments or overhauls that could be made to breathe life and credibility back into the event. Let me know what you think would make the All-Star game better and more watchable.

Arranged marriages, Why? Why not?

What is an arranged marriage?

Arranged marriage is a marriage upon which two or more parties arrange a marriage between two persons. The parties arranging a marriage may pick suitors based upon financial security, religious and social upbringing, health, and many other factors.

These parties may be the parents of the unwed person, or matchmakers. Typically, the parent/matchmaker makes note of potential spouses for their daughter/son/client.

The two families may meet and the unwed persons decide whether or not to pursue getting to know each other. If so, there may be another meeting, or the two families may make a bond and the engagement is complete! An unwed person may go through many potential spouses until choosing one they like. Though sometimes in what many (somewhat appropriately) call forced marriage, traditional arranged marriages do not happen unless the unwed consent.

This type of marriage is predominantly practiced in the Middle East and South-East Asia, but it is also found in many parts of the world - even those you would not expect. It is both a celebrated tradition and a cultural taboo, but either way you look at it, there are both benefits, as well as downsides.

The traditional type of marriage in the west is arranged between the two unwed persons by themselves. Family usually plays a significantly lower role in the unwed couples choice. The unwed persons may know each other for a very long time until deciding to marry.

So, between these two types of marriage, one must wonder - which one is best?

Arranged Marriage In the West

Arranged marriage, in the west, is a very thought-provoking topic. In most situations, arranged marriage in the US is a very foreign concept, and many do not understand why a person would choose to marry someone they have not been with very long, if at all.

The thought that persons may have families or matchmakers help choose spouses on basis on so many aspects often is met with distaste and confusion, if not outright hate.

But Why is this? American culture values personalization, independence, and most importantly, the freedom to do almost anything. With this, eventually comes the desire to pursue relationships as wished. Since allowed, relationships before marriage are highly normal and one may be "in love" many times over.
The relationship before marriage gives personalization and comfort to the situation, The normality to have many partners and 'move on' from them brings independence, and the freedom to choose anyone to wed, even if their families do not agree or their life situation isn't quite as good is very appealing to the generations of today's western societies. There is nothing Americans love more than their freedom, and they are always willing to fight for it.

If we look back on the history of western culture, we will see various alterations and forms of arranged marriage. A prominent example would be in the 1950's, where girls often aimed to marry financially secure, handsome and respected men with good families and good records. Though also incorporating love before marriage, the 50's marriage norms were very much like arranged marriages, where if the families disagreed, it would not happen. That isn't to say some didn't elope, though. As the concept of freedom and american culture advanced, so did the concept of marriage soley on personal choice.

As recently as the late 1800's into the early 1900's, it was an extremely common practice in many if not all parts of western and european society for parents to be involved in the decision making of there children's marriages.

This doesn't mean that all in the west are opposed to arranged marriage, and some even aim for it. It even exists in subtle forms- We still see today, women eying the single doctor, and chasing after rich, wealthy tycoons - it's all over television and films, where the most appealing characters are the richest, person of high society, or most intelligent, or most trustworthy (sometimes not even the last 2, but if the first 2 are there, you'd see them being courted) and people flock to them because of it.

Arranged marriage - THE PROS

Proponents of arranged marriage believe that individuals can be too easily influenced by the effects of love to make a logical choice.

Arranged marriages can be a very happy time in someone's life - and for the rest of it.There are a number of considerable benefits, each of them important to leading a stable, good life. A few of the benefits correlating to arranged marriages are, if the right suitor is chosen:

• financial security. Families/matchmakers try and choose suitors who are secure and well-off in finances, which ensures that money will be something that is always able to be gained in the case of an emergency or other such events.
  
  
• cultural and/or religious understanding. Many times, the arranged spouses descend somewhat from the same type of culture, or share the same religion. This ensures that the spouses understand one others lifestyles, and it gives common ground and belonging to the "betrothed". In some cases, this preserves the cultural and religious identity of the persons and allows them to express it as they wish.
  
  
• avoidance of pre-marriage relationships/courtship. In some cases, people are very averse to the often awkward and time-consuming tango of dating and courtship. Arranged marriages often eliminate the years many waste dating multiple persons, and allow persons to find a good spouse without the need to do so.
  
  
• Addresses female anxiety. Studies have found that men are more eager for sex than are women. Women are more likely to set limits on such activity.
  With the assurance of a socially sanctioned marriage, women are less anxious.The new couple may engage in sexual intimacy within, perhaps, 10 days after the first introduction. Men need less patience and face less frustration.
  
  
• incompatibiliy is greatly lowered. Because of the many factors that go into choosing partners for an arranged marriage, compatibility is usually very good with all the areas taken into consideration (education, crime record, family, religion, etc.). Partners are arranged based of the similarities of these areas. The similarity between the two partners ensures that they understand each other, and are able to live comfortably as they have always been accustomed.
  
  
• divorce is more unlikely. Many proponents of arranged marriages point to the 0% to 7% divorce rate for arranged marriages in contrast with a 55% divorce rate for the United States.
  
  
• Modernity Modern arranged marriages, in contrast to classical ones, are not based on proscriptions but on pragmatic considerations. Often, parents can contribute to the offspring's life by utilizing the benefits of experience to choose the right mate for him/her. The common misconception is that the concept of arranged marriages imply traditional male-female duties. Modern western societies have also started practising arranged marriages in a cosmopolitan setting.
  
  
• equality. In matching spouses, some very important factors are generally met equally. Equality/similarity in education, financial situation, and other things is very good. For example, an arranged marriage could be stressed if one spouse earned the gist of the income, as it would pressure the other to earn more or cause them to feel dependent. Education, matched properly, could help so the partners feel equal in intelligence, therefore eliminating a stress or pressure of being 'dumb' or illiterate. Also, both being educated, the spouses are most likely to be equally rational and sensible in raising children or dealing with some issues.

Those were simply a few of the benefits to arranged marriage, There may be others,depending on where you reside in and the culture you belong to.

Arranged marriage - The CONS

Of course, with every advantage, there is a disadvantage. Amongst the arguments against arranged marriage, the most prominent are:

• dependence/inablility to choose a partner. In somes cases, when parents or elders help to choose a partner, it discourages the unwed person to think for themselves and consider whether or not they believe they would be compatible. In the case of this, if after a few years of marriage, if it is going unwell, it is easy for that person to then blame their parents for poor judgement.
  
  
• families too close for comfort. Some arranged marriages, in the case of which spouses are in an argument, it may be uncomfortable or odd for the families to become involved in situations otherwise better solved solely by the partners. Especially for those raised in the west, it may be strange or even stressful for the families to have too much of their noses in their business, even more so when they express their own views in the situation.
  
  
• love becoming the second most important thing. When it comes to arranged marriages, there is a saying, that goes "to think with your head and not your heart." (or something like that anyways) Yet, it is important to think with both. Spouses who think only with their head may end up realizing there is no emotional compatibility, and those who think only with their heart may end up realizing they do not have a stable future. Although love may come later, it is important to secure a stable future while in the present. Sometimes the spouses are in love at meeting, at marriage, or later. Love sometimes blossoms later and when it does, only strengthens the marriage and make the spouses happier. However, in the case where love does not blossom, help can be sought- and if nothing can be done, then the marriage was not right somehow.
  
  
• Arranged marriage is as good or as bad as the people arranging it. A forced mismatch, based on the values important to the arranger may not be as important to the parties involved.
  
  
• Arranged marriage may prove loveless. Some people dislike the prospect of being married to someone they do not already love. Partners in an arranged marriage are usually less likely to divorce for cultural reasons, so if the marriage does not work well, it can be a trap.
  
  
• Though supporters of arranged marriage may quote statistics of lower divorce rates, such practices are most prevalent in societies lacking equal economic standing for women. Thus, the lack of divorce in these societies cannot be necessarily interpreted as happier marriages whilst the economic variable is not constant. It's likely that in poorer countries, women have no option to divorce, whilst in richer countries, they do, thus one could posit that arranged marriages must pass an economic litmus test (put forth by the parents prior to the nuptials) and have little to do with spousal satisfaction. Additionally, social stigma is a major reason for low divorce rate. In reference to lower divorce rates, correlation is not causation.
  
  
• In developed countries arranged marriages can be seen as a form of (reverse) colonization. Arranged marriages are often used by people who have not integrated into the host nation's ways of marriage in order to maintain what they see as their culture, even though they may be second or third generation descendants of the original immigrants. This leads to racial tension in the host country.
  
  

Marriage- for better or for worse

Marriage is a very special and joyous part of many people's lives, and can bring together entire families or nations - as it has done and kept doing so in the past and will continue to do into the future. When one decides they want to marry sometime during there life, it can be very stressful or exciting - and all they must do is choose how.

As with any kind of marriage, all are blessings in their own way and should be looked upon as such.

Arranged Marriage - my personal beliefs:
I believe that all sorts of marriage are suitable and joyous - but I think that certain types of marriage are for certain people. I feel that the concept of arranged marriages may have been right in it's initial and true form, but over time, culture and personal opinions diluted what may have been a good idea at one time or another, and turned it into something that is looked upon with with disgrace and ridicule.

But that's just me... What do you think? Arranged marriages...Yes? No? Why? Why not? share your thoughts and opinions on this topic, as always, using the link directly below, you can also be paid for your thoughts...

Until next time....

The browser wars are back!

At the turn of the century, Microsoft brutally vanquished Netscape in the browser wars. For a while, that victory appeared to be permanent. The battle had been a pretty ugly one: A federal court found that Microsoft illegally used its Windows monopoly to expand Internet Explorer's market share; Netscape never recovered from its loss. For most computer users, though, the browser wars were sublime: The Web browser was "invented" in 1992, and within five years, with hundreds of developers at both Microsoft and Netscape pumping out code, browsers became fast, stable, and capable of some very neat tricks.

These days, Web designers boast about all they can do with AJAX, the set of technologies that allow Web sites to emulate desktop-app behavior like drag-and-drop (ie Google Maps). AJAX runs on code that was created by Microsoft and Netscape as competitive weapons during the browser wars. Yes, today's glorious Web was made possible by yesterday's bruising business confrontation. All of us should rejoice, then, at the dawn of Browser War II.

Google has released a Web browser called Chrome. This new piece of software enters a crowded field of browsers looking for your love. Microsoft with its final revision of Internet Explorer 8,.(Both Chrome and IE 8 run only on Windows, though Google says it's creating versions for other platforms.) In June, Mozilla put out Version 3 of its popular open-source, cross-platform Firefox browser, in Version 3.1. The Norwegian software company Opera also released its latest eponymous, innovative, cult-hit browser. And Apple is now working on the next version of Safari for Mac and Windows.

All this competition is great news, because the world desperately needs a better Web browser. For at least the past four or five years, Firefox has been the gold standard among techies; I've been using it as my primary browser for at least that long. I loved it, I appreciated its smart, clean user interface, its tabs (although all browsers use tabs now, at the time when I moved to Firefox, this was the only browser to do so) and keyboard shortcuts, and most of all—Firefox's killer feature—its ability to run a wide range of useful third-party add-ons. But Firefox is hobbled by a couple of major flaws. It hogs system resources: Use it for a while, and it eats up huge chunks of your computer's memory, eventually slowing browsing to a near snail pace. Firefox is also prone to crashing: Load up an errant Web page, and you risk bringing the program to a halt. (This problem makes session-recovery add-ons like Tab Mix Plus essential.)

Admittedly, I'm not an ordinary Web user—I use my browser as a research tool, mail app, calendar, media player, and a tabbed to-do list. I live and breath the internet, I can't be without it... At any point during the day, I've got three or four browser windows open, each with 10 to 15 Web pages running in tabs (at least). I understand that this bespeaks a kind of insanity, but with Web sites growing ever more useful and Web users growing ever more addicted, it's the sort of insanity that afflicts an increasing number people.

The wonderful thing about Google's new browser, is that it's been built with the singular purpose of handling a hefty workload. While I'm not yet ready to switch to Chrome as my permanent browser—it's got some odd user interface quirks, lacks a few useful features, and doesn't have Firefox's hordes of plug-ins—I've found it to be impressively fast and stable. So far, it's run everything that I've thrown it's way without bringing my computer to a halt. For that alone, I really think that Google's on to something.

Just as Windows runs Photoshop and iTunes at the same time without letting each bother the other, or getting in each others way, Chrome lets its processes do different tasks in parallel. If one Chrome tab is busy loading Google Reader, another Chrome tab won't be crimped while refreshing the CNNSI.com website. Best of all, if one process crashes, your full browser session remains intact. I've inadvertently learned many different ways to make Firefox crash; none of these tricks worked on Chrome. The best I could do was crash a single process—this brought down an individual tab, but Chrome as a whole, kept running.

There are several more under-the-hood improvements. Google claims that Chrome beats other browsers at "garbage collection"— the computer-science term for how a program gets rid of memory it no longer needs. Better garbage collection significantly reduces how much of your computer's resources an application consumes. Google also wrote its own JavaScript virtual machine—the engine that runs all the fancy AJAX code that powers complex new Web apps—that it claims is faster and more stable than other browsers' scripting engines. Though I found Chrome speedy and less demanding on my system's resources than Firefox 3.0, its advantage isn't unsurpassable—Lifehacker's tests give the memory and speed edge to Firefox 3.1.

You aren't likely to notice Chrome's tech improvements when you load it up for the first time. What you'll see is a clean, minimalistic app, one missing several features that you're used to in other browsers. For example, Chrome presents no good way to manage bookmarks. Still, there are some innovative features. Instead of an address bar and a search box, Chrome uses only one input bar in which you're free to type either something like "ebay.com" or "policies of Barrack Obama" Chrome is smart enough to figure out when to take you to a Web page and when to perform a Web search. It also lists other recently visited sites containing ebay, obama, or other like terms.

I found some of Google's other user-interface tweaks a little more annoying than useful. Chrome places its row of tabs in the title bar, an area that in most apps isn't used for anything other than displaying the name of the program. This saves space on your screen, but it also eradicates one of the main ways people have grown accustomed to using tabs in browsers—you can't double-click the tab bar to open a new tab, like you can on every other multi-tab browser. (Double-clicking the bar in Chrome resizes the window.)

This is a petty nitpick, obviously. Chrome is very much a work in progress, a beta program that I expect will improve dramatically in the months to come. It shares two advantages with Firefox: Chrome is open-source, meaning outside developers are free to extend and improve it. And Chrome includes a plug-in infrastructure that lets people create add-ons. Because it's new, neither of these features is very important just yet. But if Chrome catches on, developers will likely build these and other great programs for it; theoretically, people could even take the best bits of Firefox and Chrome and build another single awesome browser.

For Google, Microsoft, and Apple, the browser fight is a means to other ends. Microsoft, which holds more than three-quarters of the browser market, looks at the Web as an extension of its operating system. As more of our programs move online, Microsoft fears that we might have little reason to stick to Windows; it sees control of the browser as a way to control the future of software development. Google seems to want to be in the browser business to fight Microsoft. The company's revenue comes entirely from the Web, so it's got to be wary that most of its customers come through software created by its main rival. (Google substantially underwrites both Firefox and Opera, which both feature Google's search engine as the default.) Apple, meanwhile, needs a browser to beef up its own platform—not only on the Mac but also on its phones and iPods.

Sure, these aims aren't entirely noble. But who cares? As the giants duke it out to come up with the best product, they'll copy and improve upon each other's innovations, bringing new features to all browsers. Chrome's immunity to crashing, for instance, is sure to push both Mozilla and Microsoft to improve their browsers' stability. Perhaps soon you'll be able to load up any browser you like and watch two dozen YouTube videos at once without fearing a crash—just like the Web was always meant to be used.

The gloves appear to be off!

Until next time........