Slashdot Mirror


Did NBC Alter the Olympics' Opening Ceremony?

techmuse writes "Viewing the 2008 Olympics opening ceremony online at NBC's Olympics website, you can see that the order in which the countries were presented was very different from the actual order of the countries in the ceremony, as listed at Wikipedia. NBC skipped roughly 100 countries ahead, then jumped back and forth, apparently delaying the appearance of the United States in its home market until later in the broadcast. (In fact, the US team was shown on the infield before they were shown marching!) NBC did not acknowledge this in its broadcast. Is NBC altering the reality of the broadcast to boost ratings? Was this true only online, or also in the live broadcast?"

499 comments

  1. This just in... by kcbanner · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...American media alters the truth to boost ratings!

    Movie at 11.

    --
    Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    1. Re:This just in... by r00b · · Score: 4, Funny

      the truth alters ratings to boost American media!

    2. Re:This just in... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Funny

      Movie at 11.

      Movie at about 12mid/11pm CT on NBC affilitates tonight... due to Olympic runover. You just never know when those taped sporting events will end.

    3. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now there saying that it will not end in a paternity test.

    4. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What major network television outfit publicly linked the American Antrax attacks falsely to Iraq back in 2001 and waited until 2006 to very quiet acknowledge (but not explain the source of) its deceit?

      Can boosting ratings, by feeding the American people false propaganda, be a treasonous offense?

    5. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's NBC. Do you really expect the truth from those clowns?

    6. Re:This just in... by moxley · · Score: 4, Funny

      American mainstream media alters the truth for many reasons, one of them is to boost ratings...

      There..fixed that for ya.

    7. Re:This just in... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Never mind in 'Soviet Russia'. Try current Russia.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    8. Re:This just in... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wait -- that was ABC, who kept screaming at the top of their lungs about how the anthrax was linked to Iraq, had bentonite traced to Iraq, and how three or four highly credible sources had confirmed that it was produced in Iraq labs.
      And, to the best of my knowledge, they have never changed or recanted those allegations, even now that they're (along with everyone else) claiming that a single US-based scientist was actually the person who managed to produce, on his own, without access to the necessary equipment, weaponized anthrax that several FBI labs couldn't replicate given several years of effort.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    9. Re:This just in... by wooferhound · · Score: 4, Informative

      Olympic Events have always been rearranged when on a Tape delay, I expect it, and why not ?
      It is not even displayed in correct order when it's hosted in the USA.

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    10. Re:This just in... by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You set up the question just so you could answer, didn't you?

    11. Re:This just in... by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      "Government lies, and newspapers lie, but in a democracy they are different lies."

    12. Re:This just in... by emilng · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't tase him bro.

    13. Re:This just in... by Perf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not just American media...

      In fact, since most other countrys' media are government controlled, they probably do it more. Then they feed their stories into the international wires.

      Media bias??? What media bias? We don't create the news, we just splice, edit, and reword to make it sell better.

      NBC, CBS, ABC, AP, AFP, Reuters -- they're all selling purple Kool-aid.

      You don't believe everything the Bush Administration says?
      Good.
      Go apply the same skepticism to the media.

    14. Re:This just in... by fm6 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right, because the self-proclaimed sidestream media is such a paragon of truthiness. Fox News seems to think that fact checking is a payroll system.

    15. Re:This just in... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      foxnews is part of the mainstream media.

      But you're right about the assumption: why would you believe that non-mainstream media wouldn't stretch the truth* just because the mainstream media does.

      *I don't like the phrase, "alter the truth" because that implies that they're actually presenting the truth that they've somehow actually changed, rather than something other than the truth, or my personal favorite: something true but misleading.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    16. Re:This just in... by mutherhacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "in a democracy they are different lies."

      Democracy? Nowadays democracy I'm afraid isnt working as it should be and it's all because of the media. It's turned more towards demagogy. People vote based on opinions formed by tv and the media. They dont even bother to see the candidates' plan.

    17. Re:This just in... by dwater · · Score: 0

      > You set up the question just so you could answer, didn't you?

      ...and yet not a single question mark in his post. Even rhetorical questions have question marks, IINM.

      --
      Max.
    18. Re:This just in... by despe666 · · Score: 1

      WHOOOOOOSH. He was referring to the AC post asking a question to which he arguably answered insightfully.

    19. Re:This just in... by nascarguy27 · · Score: 5, Informative
      If you had watched the actual broadcast on your local NBC affiliate, and then watched the online version, as I did, you would see that NBC screwed up while putting up the parade online. The segments between "commercial breaks", as in the content segments, were placed online out of the order they were originally broadcast in. That's why it appears not in order online.

      viewing the 2008 Olympics opening ceremony online at NBC's Olympics website, you can see that the order in which the countries were presented was very different from the actual order of the countries in the ceremony, as listed at Wikipedia. NBC skipped roughly 100 countries ahead, then jumped back and forth, apparently delaying the appearance of the United States in its home market until later in the broadcast. (In fact, the US team was shown on the infield before they were shown marching!) NBC did not acknowledge this in its broadcast. Is NBC altering the reality of the broadcast to boost ratings? Was this true only online, or also in the live broadcast?"

      emphasis mine

      To sum up NBC's 12 hour tape-delayed broadcast was in order, while the online version was shown out of order either due to NBC wanting it like that or, more likely, whoever put the parade online didn't pay attention as he/she was supposed to.

      --
      Funny createSig(Witty remark, Odd reference)
      {
      return (Funny)remark + (Funny)reference;
      }
    20. Re:This just in... by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, I consider the idea of "mainstream media" pure BS. It might mean something if it was coming from some actual fringe journalists. But it mostly comes from right wing journalists with a huge following, who build up this whole mythology of the "Liberal Elite" conspiring to screw over the U.S., with outlets like the NY Times as their media lapdogs. They "prove" by jumping on every real or supposed lapse in accuracy they can find, while being damned careless about their own fact checking.

    21. Re:This just in... by dwater · · Score: 1

      oh, right. sorry.

      --
      Max.
    22. Re:This just in... by SpzToid · · Score: 1

      even now that they're (along with everyone else) claiming that a single US-based scientist was actually the person

      Who just died recently, btw.
      Hey? Did anyone else see that movie called Michael Clayton? I don't mean to give away much of the plot, but...

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    23. Re:This just in... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      No it's all about money and product placement.

      It was certainly paid for by someone that wanted to have their commercial at a certain time to be most remembered and therefore they also wanted the country of preference to be displayed in conjunction with that commercial.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    24. Re:This just in... by houghi · · Score: 5, Funny

      That is why I watch FOX. At least they are objective.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    25. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can neither confirm or deny that the AC is in fact not sourced from Iraq. But seriously, check the timestamps next time Mr. Paranoia.

    26. Re:This just in... by rvw · · Score: 1

      Democracy? Nowadays democracy I'm afraid isnt working as it should be and it's all because of the media. It's turned more towards demagogy.

      I would call it mediocracy or is it mediacrazy?

    27. Re:This just in... by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute. They play movies on network TV? The only time they do that anymore is during sweeps. Why pay good ad revenue on airing a movie when they can get more to run 4 infomercials?

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    28. Re:This just in... by uberphear · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Probably; it's a potent and well-known rhetorical device called anthypophora.

    29. Re:This just in... by moxley · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to say that non-mainstream media sources are always truthful either; my issue lies with the fact that it isn't only lust for ratings that causes manipulation of the truth in the media - there are other things going on as well - look at what happened with fox getting caught taking talking points directly from the white house. Was anybody surprised? Not at all, and between government and corporations the amount of truly unbiased unfiltered news seems to be decreasing every year.

      As far as the term "mainstream media" I was not aware of baggage that this term seems to have for some people - for many people, fox, abc, nbc, cnn, cbs, nyt, etc are the only places they get their news and are the only places they are likely to see as being "credible."

      For me, the best way to get news is to look primarily at a wide variety of sources, mainly online - starting with some I seem to recognize as having some integrity and then look at some mainstream coverage and cobble together what seems most likely to be accurate in that way. Most of the time the reporting is the same, sometimes it isn't and occasionally you can see agendas at work - I'd say that any savvy consumer of media likely see this a lot more in large corporate news sources (eg mainstream) than others, but there are always exceptions...

    30. Re:This just in... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is not even displayed in correct order when it's hosted in the USA.

      In Canada it was displayed in the correct order: Greece first, followed by the countries in the order they would appear in a Chinese dictionary. You can't really talk about alphabetical order since Mandarin use ideograms, not letters, thus the order is based on the rule of strokes.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    31. Re:This just in... by gerrytucker · · Score: 1

      I was watching it here in the States and the NBC broadcasters said the exact same thing that Midnight Thunder said about the order. I gave up on waiting for the U.S. team after a while. I'm not sure if they re-ordered it or not, but I would be surprised based on how they had the graphics at the bottom synching up with the teams walking out.

    32. Re:This just in... by gerrytucker · · Score: 1

      Agreed that we are a sound bite driven society now for the most part, but how exactly was it better before "Nowadays"? Thinking back before mass media allowed for reporting of facts real time, I'm curious how American's decided who should lead the country. Do you think they had access to detailed positions from the candidates on different topics? Even if they did, was there the balance of hearing the candidate defending that position against real questioning? My point is media is as retarding to the democratic process as we allow it to be.

    33. Re:This just in... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      That's only true in mainstream fringe journalism

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    34. Re:This just in... by warren.oates · · Score: 1

      ... and they (NBC) never claimed the parade was "live." That 12-hour time difference plays hell with live coverage anyway.

      --
      Doh.
    35. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too true. FOX News is more objective, so to the liberal progressive media it seems conservative. If your local newspaper adds one conservative columnist, you'll see him/her touted as proof of the paper being balanced because they have a conservative, while the paper is blissfully unaware that such statements imply that nobody else at the paper is a conservative.

    36. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can boosting ratings, by feeding the American people false propaganda, be a treasonous offense?

      Not when the media is essentially just another arm of government.

      Government is so deeply entangled in mass media, they don't even need to direct the media anymore. The media just knows what to do.

    37. Re:This just in... by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems like it's one thing to rearrange Olympic Events in order to show the popular Events in prime-time. It's another to edit and reorder the events (little 'e') within a given Olympic Event. Like is it ok to rearrange the order of appearance in one of the gynastics events because you think it will make for better TV? If so, would it be ok for NBC to edit a basketball game so it looks like there are more baskets made toward the end of the game, in order to make it all more exciting?

      Seems to me like it's just an issue of where you draw the line. Obviously a certain level of editing would be unacceptable.

    38. Re:This just in... by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But it mostly comes from right wing journalists with a huge following, who build up this whole mythology of the "Liberal Elite" conspiring to screw over the U.S., with outlets like the NY Times as their media lapdogs.

      I don't know about that. I see the term most often used by bloggers who want to deride sources of information that are considered more reliable than their own weblog.

      But then I also see it being used (I think validly) as a means of lumping together the, what, 4 media companies who own every piece of music, every movie, and every television station. I mean, think about that for a second. Most of what you see and hear is being controlled and pushed on you by 4 companies. There has been evidence that these companies collude and work together. They fund the news and the art that shapes our culture, and they don't fund things that they perceive as endangering their business interests.

      It's not about right-wing or left-wing. It's about money. There's a lot of money being put into the NY Times, FOX News, ABC News, etc. And that money isn't being put into those organizations out of altruism, it's being put in to make money and protect their other business interests.

    39. Re:This just in... by nick+rawlings · · Score: 1

      ...American media alters the truth to boost ratings!

      Movie at 11.

      Indiana Jones and the Out Of Order Broadcast

      --
      No sig for YOU!
    40. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you get to the "fact" that "mainstream media" is "...mostly comes from right wing journalists..."? If you had done your homework, you would know that over 90% of the media claim to be liberals/Democrats/leftists. Sound to me like you are trying to build a Neo-mythology of a Hillaryesk "Right-Wing-Conspiracy". Sorry but your propaganda doesn't wash here.

    41. Re:This just in... by tobiasly · · Score: 1

      Actually, I consider the idea of "mainstream media" pure BS. It might mean something if it was coming from some actual fringe journalists. But it mostly comes from left wing bloggers with a huge following, who build up this whole mythology of the right-wing journalists conspiring to screw over the U.S., with outlets like the Fox News Channel as their media lapdogs. They "prove" by jumping on every real or supposed lapse in accuracy they can find, while being damned careless about their own fact checking.

      There, fixed it for ya. Hypocrisy swings both ways, ya know.

    42. Re:This just in... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      You must be new here. "Movie at 11" is Slashdot-speak to say that the newscast traditionally found there can be confused with fiction, particularlly when a tech story is being reported.

    43. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...there...

      It's they're - they are - FFS.

    44. Re:This just in... by Britz · · Score: 1

      And non-mainsteam media don't even attempt to tell the truth. Most blogs are just rants, and if they are not they only show part of the picture. And everyone knows. You can always lie best by using only true facts.

    45. Re:This just in... by Cederic · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Film at 11" predates Slashdot by a fair few years. Check the Jargon File..

    46. Re:This just in... by moxley · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about blogs - and I am sure there are tons of blogs that your description fits - but that is what a blog is.

        A blog isn't supposed to be impartial....

    47. Re:This just in... by budgenator · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was behind the scenes at the Olympics in 1996 at the boxing venue and I was amazed at how mediocre the average Boxer is! Seriously most of them would be as likely to get asses kicked out on the street as any of us, i was amazed some of them didn't get their heads handed to them. I actually had to escort a Moroccan Boxer out of the building because he was smoking after he lost his match! Anything you see on the television has been hand-picked by the network and shot by the media-pool feed. The Boxing had matches going 12 hours a day for a week and the networks worked in shifts. Some of my guys got put in the ring to shadow-box so the crews could practice before the event started.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    48. Re:This just in... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      objective? maybe honest, they are unapologetically conservatively biased unlike the liberal media that pretends to be objective.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    49. Re:This just in... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...American media alters the truth to boost ratings!
      Movie at 11.

      Boosting ratings doesn't explain why CBS News edited its interview with McCain a few weeks ago. He came up with a goofy answer to some question and they rearranged the footage, splicing in his answer to some other question, in an attempt to make him appear to be less of an idiot. What was aired didn't match the transcript. Maybe next time they'll edit the transcript too.

      After that, I find this NBC-Olympics story unimpressive. NBC messed with footage of the Olympics? Who cares?

    50. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the AC who posted and do not consider his answer a complete reply. ABC did finally retract its false claim, though incompletely, as reported here:

      our original report was indeed wrong

      It was 2007, not 2006. But no explanation has been put forward for the how this false information got reported repeatedly by ABC (and others citing ABC's report) to the American public. ABC needs to let the American public know exactly where this false information came from, why it got reported as truthful, and how ABC is going to fix its reporting method in the future to avoid progandizing the American public. Since it is 2008 and the false reporting occurred in 2001, I am not holding my breath.

    51. Re:This just in... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      My wife told me (jokingly, I hope) that she wanted to vote for Obama "because he's good-looking". I was not amused.

    52. Re:This just in... by nfras · · Score: 1

      objective? maybe honest, they are unapologetically conservatively biased unlike the liberal media that pretends to be objective.

      You're either joking or trolling. "Fair and Balanced" they are not. If their slogan was "Biased and Right Wing" then you could call them "unapoligetically conservative". Perhaps I can edit your comment for accuracy.
      They are ultra-conservatively biased unlike other media that tries to be objective.

      --
      You call me a pedant? I prefer the term "correct"
    53. Re:This just in... by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. (Every morning, as I drive to work, I have to change radio stations at 7:50, or else be inflicted with Jim Hightower's ignorant brand of left wing BS. Never seen a Michael Moore movie, never will. I find sloppy thinking all the more intolerable when it's used to express opinions I basically agree with.) But the fact remains, the kind of angry, fact-aversive rant that I associate with terms like "mainstream media" is pretty much the property of the right. The "liberals" or medium left (to be distinguished from the far left: socialists, marxists, syndicalists, etc, have never caught on in the U.S., though they still have big following in other countries) mostly lack the ability to incite strong feelings in their beliefs. That's the specialty of the right, and it's a big reason they've dominated government for the last 30 years.

    54. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is, if its the Government that is spoon feeding the networks propaganda to spin to us.

    55. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The relationship between written Chinese and spoken Mandarin is, well, complex; the same character can be used for words with the same meaning in many different "dialects." For country names, I suspect that the characters are the same across the majority of the Chinese languages (or "dialects," as they like to call them in China, so they can pretend that China is more culturally monolithic than it really is). Also, written Chinese characters are sometimes ideographic, sometimes logographic, and rebus principles are sometimes used, too.

    56. Re:This just in... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      My brother's ex-gf told him after the last election that she voted for Bush because Kerry had connections with France.

      She was oblivious that the Bush family had connections with the Bin Laden family, but ok??

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    57. Re:This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You deserve poor treatment, #625375.

    58. Re:This just in... by dintech · · Score: 1

      It depends. If there is some technical reason for why an edit is required then maybe that's ok. Engineering the order or world events just to make some more cash doesn't really seem ethical to me.

    59. Re:This just in... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm just saying it's an issue of whether they're distorting the reality of what happened when they change the order of events. Like NBC might take a sport that has a big draw (women's beach volleyball?) and put it in prime-time even though it's really happening at 5am. Meanwhile, they might take something that they don't think as many people will watch and play it at 2pm, showing it hours before beach volleyball, in spite of the fact that it took place at 6am and therefore after beach volleyball.

      And that seems fine to me, even if they're doing it to improve their ratings. Assuming there's no cross-over (some reason why it would be important to know the order of those events), it's probably not giving you any false impressions to watch them out of order.

    60. Re:This just in... by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the word demagogy comes from? Democracy has always been that way. :)

    61. Re:This just in... by mutherhacker · · Score: 1

      I'm curious how American's decided who should lead the country

      I have no idea how it worked in the US since I am from Greece but as far as I know, back in the old days after the forming of political parties the party leaders would tour the country holding speeches in major areas during which they would explain their action plan. That would give civilians an opportunity to hear their positions on various issues and also get a feel for the person based on his "charisma" among other things. The way it works now with the media throwing dirt around and lobbying their preferred man during the news while pushing commercials in between is just silly.

  2. not a real issue by jgarra23 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you had watched the whole broadcast you would know that they introduced the countries in the order of number of strokes in their Chinese name.

    1. Re:not a real issue by tinycorkscrew · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you had RTFA, you would know that's not the issue raised by the submitter. The question isn't how the countries were ordered, it is whether NBC's broadcast actually showed the countries in that order.

    2. Re:not a real issue by LostCluster · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Traditionally the Olympic teams are introduced in the alphabetical order of their name in the language of the host country, with the host team moved to last. Chinese has the problem of not having an order to follow, so they had to make something up.

    3. Re:not a real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "make something up" like apply 3000 year old rules, accepted by all for ordering countries in Mandarin?

    4. Re:not a real issue by fmobus · · Score: 5, Informative
      You sure? Wikipedia says they do have a standard collation:

      All other nations marched in name order in the language of the host nation, which in this case is the Chinese language. The collation method used is based on the names as written in Simplified Chinese characters and is similar to that used in Chinese dictionaries. The names were sorted by the number of strokes in the first character of the name, then by the total number of strokes in each subsequent character.

      So no, they didn't make anything up.

    5. Re:not a real issue by techmuse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I did, in fact, watch the entire broadcast. The countries were not broadcast in that order. You can find the order in which they actually marched in the wikipedia page. The issue here is that NBC appears to have altered the order of the events themselves. This is different from editing out bits to fit in commercials. The *story* has changed. Example:

      1) You get out of your car and walk into a store.
      2) You pull up to the store in your car
      3) You leave your house and get into your car
      4) You drive to the store
      5) You leave the store with your purchase.

      The correct order is 3,4,2,1,5, but the story told about what you did gives the impression that something very different happened.

    6. Re:not a real issue by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sounds like a Quentin Tarnetino flick.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    7. Re:not a real issue by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would have assumed that since French is the official language of the modern olympic games, they would have used that for the alphabetical ordering of the countries...

    8. Re:not a real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      They always use the name collating system native to the hosting nation to create an ascending list.

    9. Re:not a real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah but more entertaining & original.

    10. Re:not a real issue by multisync · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would have assumed that since French is the official language of the modern olympic games, they would have used that for the alphabetical ordering of the countries...

      French is one of the official languages. According to the Olympic Charter, "The official languages of the IOC are French and English." But the convention apparently is to introduce countries in alphabetical order in the language of the host country.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    11. Re:not a real issue by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most Chinese dictionaries actually sort characters first by the radical and then by stoke count within each group of radicals. I'm curious why they used just the stroke count ordering for the Olympics.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    12. Re:not a real issue by carlzum · · Score: 5, Funny

      That would just lead to a rash of countries with names like A One Republic and AAA Reliable Nation (well, probably in the French equivalent).

    13. Re:not a real issue by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except in this case it doesn't give the impression that something very different happened since aside from the first and last countries the order that nations appear in the parade has no significance. Still it's a pretty stupid thing to change.

      More important to me is that they put ads over the performances in the opening ceremony so we really did not get to see the full performance how it was intended.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    14. Re:not a real issue by Ristol · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, several countries have ignored that part of the charter in previous olympics, to the chagrin of the French. http://thatscricket.oneindia.in/olympics/2000/news/09/12/120900paris.html

      --
      What wouldn't Jesus do?!
    15. Re:not a real issue by Andraax · · Score: 5, Informative

      I did, in fact, watch the entire broadcast. The countries were not broadcast in that order.

      I watched the entire broadcast (TiVo'd it) and was so impressed, I stayed up until 4am and watched it all over again. While I don't have the countries memorized in the order they appeared, but from what I do remember, it seems about the same as on the Wikipedia article. The US came in about 2/3 of the way down the list in the broadcast and they're #139 of 204 in Wikipedia (or roughly 2/3 of the way down the list).

      I did notice that a number of small countries got very short screen times and seemed "clipped", so I guess they edited out some content to shorten up the whole thing.

    16. Re:not a real issue by SwiftWing2002 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The part where you pay at the cashier must have been edited out to make room for a commercial.

    17. Re:not a real issue by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Ahem...

      If you had RTFA, you would know that's not the issue raised by the submitter. The question isn't how the countries were ordered, it is whether NBC's broadcast actually showed the countries in that order.

      you might have missed that part of the post you replied to.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    18. Re:not a real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      But then he wouldn't have gotten the chance to be a wordy, condescending asshole, and that wouldn't be Slashdot.

    19. Re:not a real issue by ciej · · Score: 1

      So wikipedia is infallible now. I must have missed that memo.

    20. Re:not a real issue by wallsg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Most Chinese dictionaries actually sort characters first by the radical and then by stoke count within each group of radicals.

      Fool! Look at the government sanctioned sites! There are NO radicals in China!

    21. Re:not a real issue by emilng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably because that would have been another layer of complexity/confusion for any countries that aren't familiar with the Chinese writing system.

      I kind of wished they showed the Chinese characters at the bottom of the screen with the country name so that at least we would have a better understanding of what they meant by counting strokes, but then again since they changed the order of the countries appearing that would explain why they didn't do that.

    22. Re:not a real issue by revengance · · Score: 1

      It is easier to sort out by stroke than by radicals. Ii is not easy to know the radicals of some words.

    23. Re:not a real issue by achurch · · Score: 1

      Most Chinese dictionaries actually sort characters first by the radical and then by stoke count within each group of radicals. I'm curious why they used just the stroke count ordering for the Olympics.

      Because the Olympics aren't a dictionary? (: Listing by stroke count / reading seems to be another accepted way of doing things, at least to judge from the song lists I see in karaoke places.

    24. Re:not a real issue by teko_teko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A more correct example should be:
      1. Blue car goes around the road, then parked in a parking spot
      2. Red car goes around the road, then parked in a parking spot
      3. Yellow car goes around the road, then parked in a parking spot
      4. Green car goes around the road, then parked in a parking spot

      No matter what order you change them, it doesn't change much of the overall story, as their order is not significant.

    25. Re:not a real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The olympics do not stop for commercial breaks... Obviously there was at least some editing done to catch up.

      I don't know about the web site version but I watched the entire NBC broadcast and I can tell you without a doubt the US team was shown first marching. I was keeping a careful eye out of curiousity of how the US team would be dressed (The suites and hat were kind of a let down in my opinion) the very first time they were shown it was when they were announced in the parade.

      Now there were times when the camera shifted back and forth between marching and infield *after* their initial apperance..but this was artistic license by the people editing the broadcast.

      I can't speak for the web content and don't have a photographic memory of the the NBC broadcast but it does appear to me to jive with the ordering as I remembered it from the wikepedia list.

      I at least know for a fact that Russia and then Syria were played directly before the US in the origional NBC broadcast.

    26. Re:not a real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is so extremely stupid. WHO CARES???!!!

      The friggin' Olympics are on the OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD from the US, which means some time editing would have to be done for US viewers to fully enjoy "the moment of their team" as a collective.

      Big deal. It's not going to alter the outcome of the games, so why are you bitching? And your going to believe Wikipedia? For all you know, the contributor's country may have shuffled the opening ceremonies, too.

      Whoop-whoop-titty-titty-bow-wow. This is a huge non-issue.

      Wake me in the unlikely event they start changing the medals awarded to show the US ahead in everything.

      If you really want to see the Olympics, go there. It isn't that hard (other than trying to get the right paperwork from China). There's no way the entire Olympics is going to be broadcast live, anyway. There are multiple events being held simultaneously, so it is humanly impossible for a human to absorb the whole thing live, anyway.

    27. Re:not a real issue by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Funny

      No free radicals, you mean. Which is why Chinese always look so healthy and young.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    28. Re:not a real issue by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      111st Free County
      # United States #
      !! Belgium !!


      Sadly, this is probably the future.

    29. Re:not a real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holy mother of god, you people need to get a life. Do you spend this much time worrying about what you're told about world events, or is it just the order that the freakin' teams entered the stadium? Frankly, that's the part of the broadcast that put me to sleep, and WHAT'S THE G*DD*MN PROBLEM WITH EDITING THE BROADCAST? For what it's worth, the opening ceremonies were so gob-smacking amazing that it was difficult to even ponder the politics involved, and I think that's a good thing. I'm all for leaving politics out of this event...let the idiot leaders of the countries involved deal with that. This is about the ATHLETES...give them their due. It's enter-f*cking-tainment, for chrissakes!

    30. Re:not a real issue by cyberon22 · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine the confusion online if they'd ordered countries by radical? A Wubi system would have been fun - i haven't even figured that out yet.

    31. Re:not a real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake me in the unlikely event they start changing the medals awarded to show the US ahead in everything.

      So, right after the dopingtest-results? Oh no, I got that backwards.

    32. Re:not a real issue by qoncept · · Score: 1, Funny

      To hell with my karma. This may very well be the dumbest argument I've ever seen anyone make. And I've worked with a lot of complete douchebags that will argue about the most meaningless and stupid things.

      The story didn't change. A bunch of people walked in a circle. NBC showed you a bunch of people walking in a circle. If it had been edited to look like the fireworks displays were going off when the American team came in, or to look like Nicolas Sarkozy was falling asleep when the Chinese team came on (instead of Uzbekistan or whatever it was), sure, what you are saying might be reasonable. But as it stands, you are making me wish slashdot had [img] tags so I could do better than just link to this. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v340/cowcowmoomoo1/arguingOnTheInternet.jpg

      --
      Whale
    33. Re:not a real issue by mea_culpa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was told by someone from Shanghai that in Traditional Chinese (Mandarin) sorting is done by number of strokes, but the newer Simplified Chinese is sorted by alphabetical/phonetic pinyin.

      Although when I asked about it I was inquiring how Windows Explorer sort files using Chinese characters.

    34. Re:not a real issue by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's actually one very good reason for using only stoke counts. It is very simple to explain.

      I'm still a beginner at Chinese, so those structural input methods are way out of my league. I've tried them a few times in the past but didn't get anywhere with it.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    35. Re:not a real issue by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Naahhh... they just watched the broadcast on NBC

      --
      bickerdyke
    36. Re:not a real issue by kcelery · · Score: 1

      The ordering follows the number of strokes in the chinese calligraphy of the first word of the nation. The first country appeared was 'Kee' ... (could remember the whole name). It has 2 strokes. Then followed by 3, 4 strokes etc. The ordering was used in chinese phone books. So the ordering is not random. The network guys might have got freaked out when they got the list of ordering, which looks random in alphabetical order.

    37. Re:not a real issue by initialE · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't have worked in 2008, the countries were introduced in order of the number of strokes in their chinese translated characters.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    38. Re:not a real issue by feijai · · Score: 1

      Most Chinese dictionaries actually sort characters first by the radical and then by stoke count within each group of radicals.

      You're dating yourself. Radical-stroke is a fairly old method which isn't very helpful to rapid lookup as character distribution is poor. Current dictionaries use a variety of methods.

    39. Re:not a real issue by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Probably. And if not, it seems like the alternative is "Mr Lee's Greater Hong Kong", etc.

    40. Re:not a real issue by mksoccer · · Score: 1

      Funny, I would have guessed 4,3,1,2,5.

    41. Re:not a real issue by tresriogrande · · Score: 1

      Well, the number 1 in Chinese is one stroke, horizontally (2 is two strokes stacked horizontally).

    42. Re:not a real issue by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I'm younger then you think but all the dictionaries I've seen for looking up characters still use the radical-stroke order system. These are all current Chinese-English dictionaries (like this one), however I can't say how purely Chinese dictionaries are ordered. I'm curious, what sort of methods are more common for looking up characters?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    43. Re:not a real issue by sunhou · · Score: 1

      I've got many Chinese dictionaries. Most of them are sorted by pronunciation (i.e. alphabetized by the pinyin), but also include a small index which lets you look up characters based on the components of the written characters (the radicals). One difficulty is that it takes a fair bit of experience to know which part of a character is the primary radical. E.g. the character xiang3 (to want / to miss / to think) has 3 components: mu4 (wood), mu4 (eye), and xin1 (heart), which all look roughly equally "prominent". For some characters, it takes a few tries to find it. And not just for foreigners; I've occasionally found characters which even native Chinese people have trouble looking up in dictionaries (though granted, they usually don't need to look up characters, so they sometimes don't have a lot of actual experience using the radical-index part of dictionaries).

      Anyway, I've got other dictionaries which include other methods for looking up written characters. One of the ones I found easier to use when I first started was a dictionary from mainland China, where the index table is first broken down by the total number of strokes in the entire character, and then within each value, broken down by the first two strokes used when writing the character. Even if I don't know which radical is the "primary" one, I learned the proper stroke order for writing characters pretty well from the beginning, so I generally didn't have trouble using this dictionary. (I don't think the primary radical is always the first one when writing the character?)

      It seems perhaps it's this latter method that was used to order the countries marching at the Olympics, but I didn't bother looking at the details closely enough (i.e. try to determine what ordering was used for countries whose first characters had the same number of strokes).

      Oh, and just a random bit of info, another interesting dictionary I have is called a "reverse" dictionary. E.g. normally to look up "zhi1 dao4" ("to know"), you'd look under "zhi1". But in the reverse dictionary, you look under "dao4", the second character. That's a handy one for those times you remember the second character in a word but not the first. That one's also from mainland China.

    44. Re:not a real issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or "[tab][tab][space][return][newline]AAAwesome Country!!!"

    45. Re:not a real issue by Convector · · Score: 1

      Nicely done.

  3. kids today... by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is NBC altering the reality of the broadcast to boost ratings?

    Excuse me, are you serious? It's television , FFS! They edit, it's normal. Been going on since at least the 1950s.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:kids today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      this is how american stories go:
      1.something shocking to the public happens
      2.half the people complain but do nothing, and the other half laugh at the other half because they knew this was going on for a while and didn't do anything and still won't do anything
      3.people forget about the shocking story until they are reminded again of it

    2. Re:kids today... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excuse me, are you serious? It's television , FFS! They edit, it's normal. Been going on since at least the 1950s.

      This isn't the Dukes of Hazard or even Survivor. This is the Olympics. It's presented as news of the world's supposed ultimate sporting event.

      Of course, the cynical among us will note that the psudo-intellectual wrappings of competition and the human condition are just dressing to sell the product. We know this really isn't news but entertainment and that the competition comes a distant third to politics and money. We can all sit around and posture about how we expect this kind of thing. But you don't get an award for being jaded.

    3. Re:kids today... by frieko · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is about as productive as claiming pro wrestling is fake.

    4. Re:kids today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's news you moron, not Survivor or Big Brother. News is meant to represent events as they occurred. Now go back to your Wii.

    5. Re:kids today... by tm2b · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's presented as news of the world's supposed ultimate sporting event.

      And thus, it's still entertainment.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    6. Re:kids today... by mikael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the problem:

      (1) Country A attacks Country B
      (2) Country B launches a retaliatory strike against country A
      (3) Country C forms an alliance with country A
      (4) Countries D, E and F send supples to country B.

      Of course, the order of events in the news is only trivial.

      Sequence (1,2,3,4) is no different from sequence (4,1,2,3)

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    7. Re:kids today... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You lucky bastards!!
      In Germany the other half complains about the complaining of the first half, and then people forget about the thing... But only because they found a different thing to complain about.
      Except if some little man with a loud and silly voice does a mass rally. Right wing, left wing, whatever... it does not matter. He's the loudest, he's complaining, so he leads! ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:kids today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JAHAHA! WUNDERBAR!

    9. Re:kids today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sports is not news, it's sports. Now go back to your TV.

    10. Re:kids today... by Bombula · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, are you serious? It's television , FFS! They edit, it's normal. Been going on since at least the 1950s.

      Yes, but it doesn't qualify as 'live' television.

      --
      A-Bomb
    11. Re:kids today... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Informative

      you don't get an award for being jaded.

      Actually, you do.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    12. Re:kids today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Of course, the order of events in the news is only trivial.

      Yeah, right! Next you'll be telling me Iraq went something like this:

      (1) U.S. troops invaded Iraq and overthrew the governement
      (3) Iraqis attacked U.S. troops

      Oh, wait...

    13. Re:kids today... by flanksteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. It was tape-delayed. They can do whatever the hell they want. They always have with stuff like this. Why is it a big deal? Did someone lose money on the order the countries entered the stadium? Let it go people.

    14. Re:kids today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is NBC altering the reality of the broadcast to boost ratings?

      Excuse me, are you serious? It's television , FFS! They edit, it's normal. Been going on
      since at least the 1950s.

      "Mr Zapruder has annouced that he has released his film footage. Also today, President Kennedy was given last holy rights, as the presidential motorcade approaches Dealy Plaza. The president waves cheerfully. There off to the side are police escorting a man. And suddenly shots ring out!!! Oh my. People are running for cover. The motorcade now passes the school book repository. I'm hearing news that Lee Harvey Oswald has been shot. An unknown assailant appears in the window. Oswald has been shot by someone in the Grassy Knoll!!!!

    15. Re:kids today... by strelitsa · · Score: 1

      Ah, I get it ...

      Its a PROFIT DEAL!!!!

      --
      No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
    16. Re:kids today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm sorry. During the opening of the Super Bowl do they re-order the introduction of the players?

    17. Re:kids today... by revengance · · Score: 1

      As long as the ordering of the events make US looks good, nothing else matters.

    18. Re:kids today... by WAN+Rover · · Score: 1

      Do you mean to say that mainstream media alters the truth to make it more palatable to the American public.... how is this news?

    19. Re:kids today... by WAN+Rover · · Score: 1

      If this is the behaviour of the media about something jonny-six-pack actually watches what do they do to the "boring" news like Iraq and the US recession? Is it any wonder that people think Iraq bombed the twin towers and that the US economy is doing better than ever?

    20. Re:kids today... by snaildarter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hear you loud and clear... Facts don't matter when reporting news. I disagree with you, but you probably represent the majority of Americans. I find that depressing.

      --
      Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
    21. Re:kids today... by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      But you don't get an award for being jaded.

      Sure we do... it's made of jade.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    22. Re:kids today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Did someone lose money on the order the countries entered the stadium? Let it go people.

      So, that is the new American standard about what is permissible as a lie on news reporting ? If nobody loses money you can do it ? Wtf ?

      And, what is the next step ? If someone earn money, then you have to do it ?

    23. Re:kids today... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I don't think they send 'em out in order of much of anything other than the captain (usually the QB) is typically the first player announced.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    24. Re:kids today... by psycho+sparky · · Score: 1

      Does being able to do whatever they like extend as far as changing the order in which competitors finish races ? Perhaps there is a legal argument that deceitful editing to boost ratings and thus advertising income constitutes a fraud.

    25. Re:kids today... by tm2b · · Score: 1

      During the opening of the Super Bowl do they re-order the introduction of the players?

      Do I know? Would I care? Would anybody worth taking seriously in any way care enough to string paragraphs together about it?

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    26. Re:kids today... by truesaer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How in gods name did people get the impression that this was a news? It called the opening ceremony. It is entertainment. News shows do not typically feature fireworks, dance performances, hundreds of syncronized drummers, a man on a cable running through the air to light a giant torch, or any of the rest of the ceremony. Because, it was a ceremony for the purpose of entertaining us.

    27. Re:kids today... by ericspinder · · Score: 1

      During the opening of the Super Bowl do they re-order the introduction of the players?

      Why should television bother with editing when it can just tell them what to do [i.e. TV timeout ]. Of course that would be assuming that the introduction of players is the primary feature of the Super Bowl, like it is for the opening ceremony of the Olympics.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    28. Re:kids today... by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      You missed:

      (2) Profit!

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    29. Re:kids today... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Reading the recent news about Russia, I think I've come across every single ordering of those steps possible so far, from different media outlets and government propaganda releases.

      And the position of step 4 does make a difference - sending supplies to aid a country being invaded is very different to sending supplies to a country planning an invasion. If step 4 is first, then step 1 can be seen as a pre-emptive strike to avoid the reverse happening.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    30. Re:kids today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Who took the Gold in 'opening ceremonies'?

    31. Re:kids today... by flanksteak · · Score: 1

      Does being able to do whatever they like extend as far as changing the order in which competitors finish races ? Perhaps there is a legal argument that deceitful editing to boost ratings and thus advertising income constitutes a fraud.

      LOL! Then you're going to have to prosecute every documentary film maker ever for not showing events in the order they shot them. truesaer was right in his comment above. The opening ceremony show wasn't news. It was entertainment. Comparing the order of countries entering the ceremony with the order competitors finish in a race is a very entertaining leap of logic. Park your hysteria at the door.

    32. Re:kids today... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      And thus, it's still entertainment.

      Does it matter what the subject is? If something is presented as news, it is being presented as some aspect of fact. For example, let's say our news organization is doing a piece on the latest pop icon. They don't get to portray said pop icon driving away from a nightclub drunk because it makes for more entertaining news than the icon arriving at the nightclub sober, getting hammered, and being driven home in a cab. Even though such news is entertainment news, it is still news. It still is a presentation of fact. And that's the underlying issue.

      Fact has always been a bit of a moving target. Perception alone can wreck havoc on our understanding of a situation. But we've also had a long history of deliberately altering that perception, or outright falsifying reports, to portray something as fact. In more recent times, there's been a lot of attention on eliminating the more blatant attempts at this practice. But we've also found ourself armed with tools that make these things easier and harder to detect. And so there's a tendency to get really punchy when any hint of falsification exists.

      If the Olympics presentation is entertainment, then so be it. Call the spade a spade and we're done with it. But if you're going to present it as news, which NBC does as a part of NBC Sports, then you better be careful to stay well within the realm of fact.

    33. Re:kids today... by snaildarter · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that NBC put on the Olympic ceremony for our entertainment? I can't believe you've been modded a 5 for that (well, actually, and sadly, I can). You have incorrectly combined an entertainment event and a report of that event, each produced by different parties. I have no problem with the ceremony. It's the reporting of that event that I (and others here) have a problem with. They are not the same thing, which is why NBC's altering of history is itself news. In fact, the ceremony itself is irrelevant to this discussion. I believe that you (and others) have confused the two.

      I think that the difference between news and entertainment is clear. One has a purpose of entertaining; one has a purpose of providing facts. Although news may sometimes be entertaining, that entertainment is irrelevant. NBC had nothing to do with fireworks, dance, and such. That was the entertainment event, put on by China. The news part is the summarized version of reality that NBC reported to us about the event, in the form of a recorded live event. I don't like companies altering reality in an attempt to entertain me, especially when they don't even acknowledge that they are doing it. Again, I know I'm in the minority, which is why entertainment-first "news" channels like Fox News, CNN and such do so well, and why you got modded a 5 for your comment.

      Congrats; you, most Americans, and apparently Slashdotters too, get the infotainment you want, while a few historically minded folks like me instead want something more accurate. I'll continue to do without, I suppose.

      --
      Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
    34. Re:kids today... by truesaer · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine what facts of any particular importance I learned from the opening ceremony. It was purely entertainment for most viewers.

  4. Last Post!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Last Post!!!!

    1. Re:Last Post!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Second Last Post!

    2. Re:Last Post!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      first post in UK, 29th post in USA!

    3. Re:Last Post!!! by ADRenalyn · · Score: 5, Funny

      I actually posted first, but because I am in Beijing, so you Americans won't see my comment until about noon tomorrow.

    4. Re:Last Post!!! by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, they saw it earlier because Slashdot rearranged the order of the comments on the tape...

    5. Re:Last Post!!! by echucker · · Score: 1

      They'll see it tomorrow too - when the story gets posted as a dupe.

    6. Re:Last Post!!! by nCnt++ · · Score: 1
      I actually posted first, but because I am in Beijing, so you Americans won't see my comment until about noon tomorrow.

      And since you posted from Beijing, and used letter that could spell Tibet, you will never see it.

      --
      Have you ever noticed the best /. comments are long and the best Chuck Norris jokes are short?
    7. Re:Last Post!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, post lasts you! :P

  5. A simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't watch the Olympics, on NBC or any other outlet.

    1. Re:A simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or watch them on NBC's web site, with no advertisements (or adblockable adverts, I can't tell the difference), and no annoying talking heads. Just sports.

  6. No way.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A TV company alter reality to suit their ratings/profits... they're too honest to do that.

    [/sarcasm]

  7. What web Broadcast? by jackb_guppy · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you are not Windows or Mac, there is no web broadcast.

    Gets me thinking, how did a Slashdoter view the web broadcast... Is someone using Windows?

    1. Re:What web Broadcast? by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Funny

      They are probably some WINE developer who is using the API for Windows 7 to view it

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:What web Broadcast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent isn't offtopic. You can't view the web broadcast unless you're on an approved browser/OS combination.

    3. Re:What web Broadcast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are not Windows or Mac, there is no web broadcast.

      Or if you have a PPC Mac. Or if you refuse to pollute your Intel Mac with Silverlight.

    4. Re:What web Broadcast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and again, you are ok polluting it with Flash or Quicktime?

      because I'm not.

    5. Re:What web Broadcast? by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And how in the world does that count as flamebait? Offtopic perhaps, or troll even, but flamebait?

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    6. Re:What web Broadcast? by John+Jamieson · · Score: 1

      I thought it was funny, and ontopic.

    7. Re:What web Broadcast? by Briareos · · Score: 1

      YES. Yes. Ye...

      No. NO. NO! NO!!1!elf

      (Apologies to Monty Python's "Life Of Brian", obviously...)

      np: Move D & Benjamin Brunn - Radar (Songs From The Beehive)

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

    8. Re:What web Broadcast? by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      and again, you are ok polluting it with Flash or Quicktime?

      because I'm not.

      How the hell did you get a Mac without Quicktime?

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    9. Re:What web Broadcast? by seanonymous · · Score: 1

      Flash gives you the same experience on Mac, Windows, and Linux. Silverlight adds special features for Vista users. Things like a menu to select which events to watch. This is both anticompetitive and lame.

      It really won't matter which proprietary player you choose to install once HTML 5 takes hold, but until then, I'm more comfortable with the one that's geared towards being a useful product, not the one that's trying to sucker me into buying Vista.

  8. NBC alters the Olympics... by vigmeister · · Score: 3, Funny

    to further nationalistic propaganda. All the medals won by Americans in the past were all actually made of tin. All the better to make hats with!

    Cheers!

    --
    Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    1. Re:NBC alters the Olympics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nationalistic propaganda is well within the spirit of the Olympics. So I guess I'm cool with it.

  9. Not news. by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This has been a tradition in Olympic broadcasts for years. It's called editing.

    1. Re:Not news. by telso · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, editing is not an Olympic broadcasting tradition; it's an NBC Olympic broadcasting tradition. Most Olympic networks show as much as they can live, and only show events tape-delayed when there are two events worth watching at the same time (or they're showing recaps when it's night time where the Olympics are).

      NBC, on the other hand, instead of showing one of the most exciting opening ceremonies ever, decided to show The Today Show and, in my area, local news (apparently some loser got arrested for a domestic assault!).

      Sadly, this is not news either. Which is why most Americans who live on the Canadian border watch the Olympics on CBC.

    2. Re:Not news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't watch it on BBC? Weird. Well, at least they don't watch US stations, whose integrity slumps more than the current President's.

    3. Re:Not news. by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      Damn NBC for not showing the opening ceremony while I and millions of others in their target market were at work! I was looking forward to missing it so I didn't have to spend hours in front of the tv amazed by the most spectacular ceremony ever.

    4. Re:Not news. by quacking+duck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      CBC (Canada's approved Olympic broadcaster) not only showed it live, they also did an encore presentation starting at 6 pm.

      They replayed the whole thing--all 4+ hours, no editing that I noticed. The only thing different in the encore were occasional live programming notes, and abbreviated (10-minute) news broadcasts at 6 and 10.

      Why did NBC feel the need to so obviously edit their repeat?

    5. Re:Not news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly? No one gives a fuck anyway. The Olympics are a yawnfest and your little rant and the people who modded you up for it shows just how out of touch you little bitches are. Who gives a fuck if an event is live? It's not like they're showing it 3 months later.

      Go take that log out of your ass and join us back in the human race.

    6. Re:Not news. by Torontoman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is blatantly obvious to us Canadians when we have the choice of watching CBC or a US station... We watch the CBC live (whenever it happens to be...) and with 'low level editing' - and just sort of laugh at the US version which is in prime time and so altered it is just awful. The CBC primetime event is an exact copy of the live event. (Probably because it's cheaper just to hit play and not to edit...)

    7. Re:Not news. by emptycorp · · Score: 1

      NBC, on the other hand, instead of showing one of the most exciting opening ceremonies ever, decided to show The Today Show and, in my area, local news (apparently some loser got arrested for a domestic assault!).

      Actually they delayed the opening ceremonies about 12 hours or so, so us in the US would see the night-time ceremony at night in the US so it doesn't mess with anyone's heads or something.

    8. Re:Not news. by Solandri · · Score: 1

      CBC also did a lot less commentating, which IMHO really let me sit back and enjoy the spectacle more. Those NBC commentators just never shut up.

      OTOH, NBC had better camera angles many times.

    9. Re:Not news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they're americans.

    10. Re:Not news. by yuna49 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sadly, American sports commentators have been told that "dead air" is absolutely the worst possible thing that could happen during a telecast. I don't really know why this has become the norm in the US. Dead air was obviously anathema to radio, but with television it makes little sense. Other countries' networks seem perfectly happy simply to show the events unfold on screen with an occasional comment from the announcers. I have to assume the American practice shows how little regard the producers have for their viewers, since the producers appear to believe we cannot fathom what we see on screen without the comments of some retired athlete to guide us.

    11. Re:Not news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NBC really, really sucks when it comes to the Olympics. I lived in Boston in 2000 and NBC broadcast everything as if it were live, even though it all happened the day before. When the Winter Olympicas came around, the anchor said "...I've been waiting a while to say this, but we are LIVE at the Olympics...". So that NBC doesn't have to do the same rubbish, the swimming schedule has been changed so that in China, the heats are all in the evening and the finals are all in the morning (they did this at the last Olympics too) so that the finals are at prime time for NBC in the USA.

      Anyway, my point is that here in the UK, the BBC is showing the Olympics LIVE on four TV channels and then doing repeats and then having the whole thing streamed on their website live and available on demand and we have national radio coverage.

      That, I guess, is why we pay a license fee here :-)

    12. Re:Not news. by Teancum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This isn't even really an "American practice", as the "American Broadcasting Company" (ABC) didn't have nearly so much commentary when they were the "host network" of the Olympics prior to NBC's coverage.

      Some of the "color" commentary is IMHO acceptable during actual sporting events, but not for the opening and closing ceremonies. I usually just scream at my television trying to tell the stupid "hosts" to shut up so I can listen to what is being said during the ceremony itself.... knowing that all that does is piss off my wife.

      I think some of this also has to do with the outrageous salaries that some of these commentators are earning during the Olympics, and that NBC is hoping to get these "anchors" to earn their money. Top anchors like Bob Costas get several million dollars just to be there.

    13. Re:Not news. by Translation+Error · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have to assume the American practice shows how little regard the producers have for their viewers, since the producers appear to believe we cannot fathom what we see on screen without the comments of some retired athlete to guide us.

      The fact that almost all comedies have laugh tracks didn't give this away?

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    14. Re:Not news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to assume the American practice shows how little regard the producers have for their content, since the producers appear to believe we cannot fathom what we see on screen without mindless trivia to distract us till the next commercial break.

      /FTFY

    15. Re:Not news. by tresriogrande · · Score: 1

      So Bob the talking-head could talk? It doesn't make sense, but it does to the people who own NBC. It is such a pain watching him kept talking the minutes away instead of showing hundreds of hours event tapes already available. What did we do to deserve this?

  10. Other countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hi:

    I thought only America was in the Olympics. When did they start letting other countries participate?

    1. Re:Other countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we do need some patsies to beat up on and whoop. Just like the Harlem Globetrotters needed the Washington Generals.

    2. Re:Other countries? by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Funny

      The other countries are kinda like the Washington Generals, we just need them there so America can show of their skills.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:Other countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi:

      I thought only America was in the World Series. When did they start letting other countries participate?

      There we go, fixed it for you.

    4. Re:Other countries? by Minwee · · Score: 5, Informative

      I thought only America was in the World Series. When did they start letting other countries participate?

      There we go, fixed it for you.

      Since you asked, it was in 1969. However it wasn't until 1992 that a clearly superior team from another country was allowed to win.

      They then won again in 1993, and the 1994 World Series was canceled when it looked like a foreign team was going to win for the third time in a row and the US teams refused to play unless the rules were changed in their favour.

      Now you know.

    5. Re:Other countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA...USA...USA!!!

    6. Re:Other countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, even the harlem globetrotters need someone to play against!

    7. Re:Other countries? by brentyl2 · · Score: 1

      ...we just need them there so America can show of their skills.

      Like our spelling.

      --
      Regards, John Hancock.
    8. Re:Other countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does it mean 'Other countries'? I always thought that the Olympics were like the World Series...

    9. Re:Other countries? by breser · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nice revisionist history. The players went on strike because the owners wanted a salary cap. It had nothing to do with the Montreal Expos. Though it is true that the strike pretty much destroyed the Expos.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Major_League_Baseball_strike

    10. Re:Other countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly, this must be one of the few "world championships" where they'll actually get some competition...

    11. Re:Other countries? by Minwee · · Score: 1

      While it's nice to see you supporting my statement, if you can find any factual errors then feel free to point them out.

    12. Re:Other countries? by breser · · Score: 1

      the 1994 World Series was canceled when it looked like a foreign team was going to win for the third time in a row and the US teams refused to play unless the rules were changed in their favour.

      You imply only the World Series was canceled in 1994. Rather the strike began before the normal season was even finished. There was no guarantee the Expos would be in the world series at that point.

      You imply that the strike was to change rules favorable to foreign teams. Rather the strike was to maintain the status quo. Thus the Canadian wins in 1992 and 1993 and potential win in 1994 were under the existing rules.

      You state that the US teams refused to play. Rather it was the players not the teams that refused to do anything.

      As I said before the strike was about salary caps. You can say that the salary caps would have been beneficial to the Canadian teams. However, this is a far cry from saying that the US teams refused to play because the Expos might have won the 1994 World Series. Even if the players had not fought this rule change it would not have taken effect until after the 1994 World Series had been played.

      About half your comment is correct and then you wander off into basically a conspiracy theory about US players striking to prevent the Expos from winning.

      I think a far simpler explanation for the strike exists. Greed.

    13. Re:Other countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought only America was in the Olympics. When did they start letting other countries participate?

      Yes, after all the american baseball league is called World series, so by extent all world sports events should only contain americans.

      - Peder

    14. Re:Other countries? by booch · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by greed.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  11. olypics video tech by drDugan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I looked yesterday for where I could watch Olypics videos. Looks like I needed to instal some plugin from Microsoft that only works with "approved" browsers. Silverlight?

    I don't even mind if I'm bombarded with ads to see video. I would even pay for certain footage of one person I know competing in Beijing and some of the events. But a Microsoft player? No thanks.

    1. Re:olypics video tech by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's no such thing as a television network that operates worldwide, so Olympic rights are sold on a country by country basis. Web video rights go to the TV network that owns the rights for the nation, and they have a right to lock other web videos out and responsiblity to keep their web videos within their borders. Sorry, no open media formats allowed, NBC had to go with something DRMed and they're already friendly with Microsoft, so it's no surprise NBCOlympics.com requires Sliverlight.

    2. Re:olypics video tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to nbc.com a while ago but I can't see the videos: I only get this message:

      "Sorry, NBC Direct currently requires Windows XP (Service Pack 2) or Windows Media Center Edition or Windows Vista."

      FFS, what's wrong with standards so we don't lock people into a single platform?

    3. Re:olypics video tech by skyshard · · Score: 3, Informative

      using firefox on a mac here, and i was able to use the player at http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/index.html fine after installing silverlight...

    4. Re:olypics video tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but Flash Player would be ok?

      Pick one of the two.

    5. Re:olypics video tech by Buran · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, we have this thing called the internet that can *gasp* be used to view things not hosted in the US. And as we all know, trying to ban something just makes it multiply like crazy (thank you, Streisand, for naming that phenomenon via your idiocy), so if you look hard enough you'll find it somewhere. And I sure as hell know that if I were interested (I'm not) I wouldn't be using Microsoft crap either -- it won't even run on my machine.

    6. Re:olypics video tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works on Firefox and Safari, asshole.

    7. Re:olypics video tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I looked yesterday for where I could watch Olypics videos. Looks like I needed to instal some plugin from Microsoft that only works with "approved" browsers. Silverlight?

      I don't even mind if I'm bombarded with ads to see video. I would even pay for certain footage of one person I know competing in Beijing and some of the events. But a Microsoft player? No thanks.

      Informative? Really? A slashdot poster hates M$? That's insightful? and to the poster....suck it up, crank up a virtual machine or visit a public machine and watch your friend...anti-M$ fanaticism is stupid...I'm not saying you have to feed them your cash day in and day out but don't be a flaming self-righteous idiot that misses your friends performances.

    8. Re:olypics video tech by Drakonik · · Score: 1

      lock people into a single platform

      You answered your own question.

    9. Re:olypics video tech by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      The IOC should mandate free open web feeds for 2012.

    10. Re:olypics video tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would even pay for certain footage of one person I know competing in Beijing and some of the events. But a Microsoft player? No thanks.

      You're an idiot.

    11. Re:olypics video tech by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Two questions for you:

      Why should the IOC do something that would devalue what it produces? The Olympics are run on a shoestring budget compared to other "profitable" sports.

      Why don't you care about the Winter Olympics in 2010?

    12. Re:olypics video tech by pyrbrand · · Score: 1

      As opposed to having to install a plugin from Adobe that only works on "approved" (WTF - you mean browsers which have enough users to justify writing a plugin for? At least MS is supporting the Moonlight project, even paying for their plugin licensing so there's even an open source option for Silverlight) browsers?

    13. Re:olypics video tech by karbyn-aceous · · Score: 0

      Not that I am biased to any one sport or anything ... but you can check this out for just about any event possible ... http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/schedule/daily/2008/08/09/water_polo/

      You can grab the link and use it in any viewer ... WMP ( yay! ) or VLC etc. Even works straight from FF

    14. Re:olypics video tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct. I bet you missed to follow the extended how-to:

      1. Install qemu
      2. Setup a VM using one of those useless CD's that come with some computers -- no, not the AOL ones, the Windows ones. You didn't trash them out, did ya?
      3. Run the VM
      4. Install Silverlight
      5. ...
      6. Profit
    15. Re:olypics video tech by tiffany98121 · · Score: 2, Informative

      how about a non-microsoft silverlight player then? http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight

    16. Re:olypics video tech by drDugan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      hate them? no. An individual's emotional response to a company doesn't do shit. They followed the rules of US capitalism with ruthless and unprincipled efficiency. For that, I kind of admire their dedication to an ideal, even if I dont agree with their behavior.

      However, I've seen their actions and I know what they have done - to individuals, to companies, to the computer industry and to innovation in general. The actions the company has taken and continues to take have lead me to be a vocal and outspoken opponent of any product that bears the name, every partnership that involves them, and every business venture they are involved with.

      You can attack that point of view, call me names from behind your AC shield, and act childish all you want. The word is not "fanaticism" - the one you have to understand is "accountability". Many in the US seem to have lost this concept in the last 10 years or so. Choosing to not to do business with them was easy and happened long ago. Microsoft has gone so much farther, and there is nothing they could do, short of a complete breakup of the company plus new management that would open my mind to trusting them.

    17. Re:olypics video tech by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

      And as we all know, trying to ban something just makes it multiply like crazy

      Very true.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    18. Re:olypics video tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swedish public tv has 3 web-channels with Olympics on http://media.svt.se/playos/

      I know it's not silverlight, since I can watch it on ubuntu. Don't know if it's watchable outside of Sweden, though. Also, the commentators obviously speak Swedish. (No commentators on the Peking+ channel, though.)

    19. Re:olypics video tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even mind if I'm bombarded with ads to see video

      Be honest

    20. Re:olypics video tech by kuulad · · Score: 1

      Norwegian public broadcaster NRK also has a lot of web broadcasting during the olympics here. Right now they have 8 live channels. The streams are wmv and work in ubuntu(vlc), but as with the Swedish parent, I don't know if they are watchable outside of Norway, but in case it does, "Direkte" means Live.

    21. Re:olypics video tech by Whitemice · · Score: 1

      Yep, this was announce a long time ago. I've even gone to .NET presentations where this was pitched, so it isn't surprising at all.

      This is a way for them to automatically get the Silverlight plugin into roughly 8 million browsers. This lets Silverlight hit the ground with a large installed base.

      The sad truth is that Silverlight is a really nice technology - way better than mucking about in Javascript or shoe-horning functionality into flash. Silverlight 2.0 provides a CLR on the client with the ability to download .NET assemblies.

      The good news is that Silverlight works on LINUX / firefox. Microsoft has supported the Mono team and even provided multimedia codes for the proprietary media codecs. So unless you are some omg-there-are-patent-issues-with-implementing-an-ecma-standard ignorant wanker there really isn't an issue here.

      --
      Using "Common Sense" is being either to arrogant or to ignorant to ask people who know more about something than you.
    22. Re:olypics video tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing silverlight's cross-platform! Oh wait... we have to have actual implementations to say that...

    23. Re:olypics video tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the USA: "This clip is not allowed played in your region. Read more..."

    24. Re:olypics video tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Olympics are run on a shoestring budget compared to other "profitable" sports.

      How did you not get marked funny? That's hilarious.

    25. Re:olypics video tech by booch · · Score: 1

      Actually, one of the problems many of us have with Microsoft is that they don't follow the rules of US capitalism -- they cheat. Or at least they have several times in the past. And they've only been given a few slaps on the wrist for it. See this article for details. (I wish it had more on the 1994 consent decree -- they were charging PC makers for Windows even if the PC shipped with another OS instead of Windows.)

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  12. dilemma by matushorvath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I don't know whether to boycott the Olympic Games because of China ignoring human rights or because it was converted to a festival of commerce. If it goes on like this, I may be soon able to boycott each day of Olympics for a different reason.

    1. Re:dilemma by lp.sresu · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's even more commercial if you watch it on NBC. I swear if one of the athletes so much as coughs they go to commercial. "Fuck seeing the games, here are more inspiring ads from our sponsors!"

    2. Re:dilemma by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Now I don't know whether to boycott the Olympic Games because of Germany mistreating the Jews, or because it was converted to a festival of commerce. If it goes on like this, I may be soon able to boycott each day of Olympics for a different reason.

      Fixed that for you, or at least set the wayback machine to the 1930's. Not to 'Godwin's Law' myself here, but the problem of countries hosting the games to boost their prestige and defuse civil rights abuse is an old one. And the problem of commercialization, given the disasters of the Australia games, isn't exactly new, either.

    3. Re:dilemma by matushorvath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In fact, I think you are right. I can probably find a separate reason to boycott each day of the Games even now. Doping, commercialization, the new swimsuit controversy, human rights, Tibet, Avery Brundage reaction to Munich attacks, bribes deciding who will host the games, Moscow and L.A. "half-games"... and of course also the Berlin propaganda games (remember, you broke the law first ;)

    4. Re:dilemma by BanjoBob · · Score: 1

      I would boycott NBC for censorship. The Chinese have a lot more openness than NBC does for the games!

      --
      Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
    5. Re:dilemma by matushorvath · · Score: 1

      I can do that for you, since I live in Europe and we have no NBC on the cable :)

    6. Re:dilemma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry me a river little girl

    7. Re:dilemma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've decided to boycott Linux because the Finns are killing whales, many of whom are smarter than Linus Torvalds.

    8. Re:dilemma by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 1

      What are these Olympic Games you mention? I've not seen any for years except for a few seconds until I change channel or turn the tv off when caught off guard.

    9. Re:dilemma by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Oh, I hardly _broke_ Godwin's Law. I attempted to follow it. The actual law states:

      "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

      Slashdot is not Usenet, but much of the style is similar.

    10. Re:dilemma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I don't know whether to boycott the Olympic Games because of China ignoring human rights or because it was converted to a festival of commerce. If it goes on like this, I may be soon able to boycott each day of Olympics for a different reason.

      I boycotted Atlanta for the same reason! HUMAN RIGHTS!

  13. Re:YOUR GAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my gay what?

  14. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watergate, Iran-Contra, Abramoff, and now this.

    To think this used to be a great country.

  15. Let's get some perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The Olympics aren't some sort of divine event which must only be related in reverent and unambiguously true tones. It's just another big money media event and the broadcasters have every right to try to maximize their dollars by editing it however they want - though if they start to edit it so the winners are different as shown than in the actual event, one would hope they have some sort disclosure statement for the broadcast.

  16. NBC BOOO! OLYMPICS BOOOO!! USA BOOOOOO!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i hate things my parents like!
    blargh!

  17. Did /. alter the contents of this post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When it first appeared on the /. website this post contained much fail. Subsequent posts contained more. Did /. alter this post and reality?

  18. What is more outrageous... by aralin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... is that I have to actually subscribe to some local TV provider like AT&T, even if I don't own a TV, just so I could watch the NBC Olympics. There is no option for saying I don't have a TV service and to pay the sum they would receive from the local cable company directly to NBC. That is seriously outrageous.

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    1. Re:What is more outrageous... by zsazsa · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's keeping you from just picking a provider from the list that they give you? I just picked the first one in the list (AT&T Broadband) and it let me in and watch the online version of the parade of nations.

    2. Re:What is more outrageous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you thought of NBC as a software company, which I assume you're familiar with, your use case is at the very bottom of their list. There is nothing outrageous about them servicing the broad masses - which is their business model - as opposed to catering to your very specific needs.

    3. Re:What is more outrageous... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I selected a random TV provider after providing my zip code. I'm currently watching Women's Field Hockey, Australia vs Japan. I'm sure I could have even entered a random zip code.

      This is actually quite an improvement over how it normally works, where I can't watch an event because someone decided that broadcasting it over the Internet is somehow a bad idea.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:What is more outrageous... by aralin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Honesty, not wanting to steal something I did not pay for and US Laws. Unauthorized access to NBC systems. I hope you read the terms of their service? There are recent precedents....

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    5. Re:What is more outrageous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ... is that I have to actually subscribe to some local TV provider like AT&T, even if I don't own a TV, just so I could watch the NBC Olympics. There is no option for saying I don't have a TV service and to pay the sum they would receive from the local cable company directly to NBC.

      That is seriously outrageous.

      ... is that I have to actually subscribe to some local TV provider like AT&T, even if I don't own a TV, just so I could watch the NBC Olympics. There is no option for saying I don't have a TV service and to pay the sum they would receive from the local cable company directly to NBC.

      That is seriously outrageous.

      I just told them that I have comcast. They did not check.

    6. Re:What is more outrageous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just pick directv - works everywhere. you don't actually have to be a subscriber, just smart enough to say you are

    7. Re:What is more outrageous... by WAN+Rover · · Score: 1

      You should try the old-school free-to-air... anyone remember rabbit-ears?

    8. Re:What is more outrageous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a tool.

    9. Re:What is more outrageous... by Corbets · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That was modded insightful, but I hoped it was meant to be funny, till I read your response.

      What is it with people today that believe they should be able to receive anything they want in any form they want it without taking into account economic realities? I would imagine NBC has little desire at the moment to provide micro-managed services to each little joe and dick when they can sell in bulk directly to a few large providers instead.

      Perhaps in the future that infrastructure will exist; maybe you can even make some money pitching the idea to NBC. But to bitch that something you want doesn't exist is just asinine.

    10. Re:What is more outrageous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that you can just enter your area code and pick any cable company and it will work, right?

      It's not like they verify this. It more to know what schedule to show you for what events are on TV.

    11. Re:What is more outrageous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that your answer to everyone who gives you honest reasons for their choices? Do you make obeying the law an elective whenever obeying the law denies you your free candy? If your answer to either or both of these is 'yes' you might be a tool of yourself. In any case, you're a loser.

  19. Re:YOUR GAY by Endo13 · · Score: 4, Funny

    your gay and youe a newb your gay and youe a newb

    Translation:

    "Translate Server Error."

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
  20. Mod points? by GrndChmpion · · Score: 1

    I'd Mod NBC +1 (Interesting)

  21. NBC's unending blather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say the unending blather from NBC's hosts is at least as offensive as their reordering of events. We couldn't take their breathlessness during the opening ceremonies for more than 2 minutes at a stretch. Shut up already!

  22. Altering live broadcasts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is NBC altering the reality of the broadcast to boost ratings? Was this true only online, or also in the live broadcast?"

    <sarcasm>
    Yes, they edited the live broadcast.
    They simply warped the spacetime continuum to record the teams before they really made their entrance.
    It's amazing what you can do with iMovie thesedays.
    </sarcasm>

    1. Re:Altering live broadcasts? by Surt · · Score: 1

      In fairness to the parent, NBC edits a lot of their live broadcasts, but not typically to this extent.

      They've stretched the boundaries of 'live' so far that it really has no meaning any more.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  23. Broadcast version not altered by zsazsa · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just did a quick check of the recording of the live broadcast that I made. In every spot I checked, the order given on the Wikipedia pages matches the one in the broadcast. So, at least in the case of the broadcasted version, the ordering matches up.

    1. Re:Broadcast version not altered by XorNand · · Score: 0

      Ever think that whoever wrote the Wikipedia article got their info from watching the broadcast?

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    2. Re:Broadcast version not altered by zsazsa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ok, I just checked the online version... and it's totally mixed up and out of order. It's definitely not the correct order as seen in the broadcast version.

    3. Re:Broadcast version not altered by markybob · · Score: 2, Informative

      this is correct. the live broadcast was not altered

    4. Re:Broadcast version not altered by zsazsa · · Score: 4, Informative

      The order in the Wikipedia article (Chinese stroke count order) has been that way since August 1st.

    5. Re:Broadcast version not altered by SMQ · · Score: 1

      I just compared against my TiVo copy from my local NBC affiliate and found the same: the broadcast order matched Wikipedia. --SMQ

      --
      SMQ 90AE4B2BC4F6BEAF7340F0B40BA2DEF7340F6BC2D0392
    6. Re:Broadcast version not altered by barzok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "live broadcast" was not live.

    7. Re:Broadcast version not altered by deadmantyping · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you had seen the broadcast you would know why the countries are in that order. They said that China ordered based on the number of brush strokes of the first character in the simplified Chinese representing the country's name. I watched the entire thing last night following along with the list with the names written in Chinese and the only editing they did was to fit in commercial breaks and all they did there was do a quick recap of the countries that went past during the break. This is a non-story.

    8. Re:Broadcast version not altered by zsazsa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I mistakenly said "live" because the article summary used the word. I realize that the broadcast was delayed due to the time difference.

    9. Re:Broadcast version not altered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, at least in the case of the broadcasted version, the ordering matches up.

      And if they were going to edit anything, they'd have edited it so that the friggin' Chinese Earthquake Kid's flag was upright.

      Talk about the Emperor having no clothes. The kid's marching around the stadium with his nation's flag upside-down, and nobody breathes a peep of comment about it, let alone dares to swap flags with him while the cameras aren't looking.

    10. Re:Broadcast version not altered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I checked my recorded version too. The broadcast order was the same order as Wikipedia up to country 160 (as far as I checked). The only skipping around they did was when coming back from commercial, they'd do a quick recap of the countries that were missed due to selling ads.

      I am Anonymous Coward and I approve this message.

    11. Re:Broadcast version not altered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drats, if NBC had manged to alter the _live_ broadcast this would have been much more interesting!

      -- Dr. E. Brown

  24. NBC didn't broadcast it live either by rufey · · Score: 1

    The opening ceremony took place in the early morning hours of Friday for timezones in the USA. Beijing is 16 hours ahead of US Eastern Dayliight Time. Where I live the opening ceremony was broadcast on NBC over-the-air TV at 8:00am Saturday morning Beijing time. Hardly what I'd call live.

    I'm not sure if NBC broadcast it live over the Internet - I was sleeping at that time since it was still 5am Friday morning where I am (Utah).

    In contrast to that, the opening ceremony for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah was broadcast on NBC over-the-air TV live - so there was no editing, though during the introduction of countries, some of them were not shown due to commercial breaks. In that case, when the coverage resumed, it was mentioned that countries X, Y, and Z had been introduced during the commercial break, but they were not shown.

    1. Re:NBC didn't broadcast it live either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Beijing is 16 hours ahead of US Eastern Dayliight Time.

      Actually, Beijing is 12 hours ahead of EDT. So says World Clock.

  25. When in China... by Adreno · · Score: 1

    ... do as the Chinese government does. We wouldn't want to see REALITY on TV, would we? It's so... passé (and often incongruous with how Big Brother / Our Corporate Overlords want us to think).

  26. Oh my, you mean you can't believe what's on tv? by dstates · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh my, oh my. You mean the TV companies alter reality for marketing purposes? I am shocked.

    All those yellow lines that magically appear and disappear on the football fields?

    All those "billboards" that are not really there on the stadium wall?

    I bet those starlets are even where padded bras. Do you think that they might even have had surgery. Goodness gracious, I wonder if Barbara Walters uses botox?

    And those wrestlers. Do you think that they might be using steroids?

    I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

    Actually, the MSNBC online video let's you pick what you want to see and caries a lot of obscure sports from end to end. Much better than listening to Pierre Salinger babble on about wine tasting in all the French villages while you are waiting to see actual athletes.

    --
    Statesman
    1. Re:Oh my, you mean you can't believe what's on tv? by smchris · · Score: 1

      All those yellow lines that magically appear and disappear on the football fields?

      All those "billboards" that are not really there on the stadium wall?

      EXACTLY. This is late breaking news on the way-back machine circa, what, 1975?

      I used to watch the Olympics back in the 60s when it was LIVE. Sure, there was a lot of time with the announcers picking their noses and spending five minutes running through the life history of the next guy up on the slalom. Sure it was off prime-time one way or the other. But, dammit, it was LIVE. When it became an edited and packaged product, I totally lost interest. And that was like decades ago.

      Maybe if I cared enough to set myself up for live sat feed today?

         

  27. NBC Censors Olympics to Americans by BanjoBob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NBC has done an excellent job of insuring that Americans cannot watch the Olympics, the Opening Ceremony and other aspects of what is going on in China. They are the first to bitch and moan about China censorship and just look at what they're doing now! Typical media.

    They don't have cable out here so watching anything on the Internet from NBC is just not possible. They have effectively censored millions of Americans from watching the Olympics.

    What they do have has been cut up and altered to make room for all that advertising. And, just how many times do I have to hear "Ra Deem Team" from NBC. If I hear it again, I'm going to puke!

    Now, there are plenty of NON-AMERICAN web sites with the streams and videos! China has some, Germany has one, and there are others. You get the point... AVOID NBC and you can watch for free!

    --
    Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
    1. Re:NBC Censors Olympics to Americans by Locutus · · Score: 1

      isn't their online video replay forcing MS Silverlight on those who want to watch it? NBC is still Microsoft's bitch.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    2. Re:NBC Censors Olympics to Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have effectively censored millions of Americans from watching the Olympics.

      That's not what "censored" means. I understand that you like to use emotionally charged words to make your argument sound better, but please don't dilute the real meaning of the word.

    3. Re:NBC Censors Olympics to Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have to agree. But the real story isn't just the parade of nations order.

      I watched the NBC version during US prime time, and then downloaded the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp) HDTV version without any adverts and watched it today on a tip from a friend online.

      You will be simply stunned at how much more of the ceremonies (easily HALF of the stadium performances were edited out by NBC) there really was, as well as the abbreviated parade of nations, presenters, even just fireworks displays over Beijing.

      Not only does NBC insult the viewer by editing out a large portion of what most really wanted to watch (the artistic presentations) but they insult China and the countries participating by making their own version of events and expecting us to swallow it between sappy commercials.

    4. Re:NBC Censors Olympics to Americans by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Rush Limbaugh has it right in this case: PMSNBC

      --
    5. Re:NBC Censors Olympics to Americans by tlh1005 · · Score: 1

      Time zone differences combined with a multitude of events usually make some creative scheduling a necessary evil with every Olympiad. Last NBC will show bias towards events which traditionally draw more viewers as well as events where Americans are favored. Nothing wrong with this in my book. As far as advertising goes, it sucks, but its nothing new, that's how broadcast TV works. Tivo works the same during the Olympics as it does when you're watching Lost.

    6. Re:NBC Censors Olympics to Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually tried watching some of the French competitions from a French website and they won't stream to by IP because I'm in the USA. Love it NBC.

  28. OMGWTF!?!?! by Shihar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Guess, take a breath. Yes, NBC altered the video. They do the same thing when you see movies. They take your beloved movie and ALTER IT!!!!!! They do this to squish down time and show more things.

    Now, before we freak out shit out and panic that they are hiding something from you, realize that this stuff is filmed by more cameras then you can even begin to contemplate AND is filled with people from all around the world to serve as witnesses. What does this mean? It is really frigging unlikely that NBC is hiding "the truth" from you. Far more likely, they are trying to shrink a 4+ hour opening ceremony into something that will better fit their schedule.

    Worrying that they some how were altering the live feed is so dumb and inane that I can't even respond. People, take a frigging collective deep breath.

    1. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by DigitAl56K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh really? And for just how many movies do they alter the timeline of events? Maybe the cable companies have the ability to edit for time, but I doubt they get to rearrange the movie because it alters the story. Imagine if we could just alter the timeline of history so that whenever there is a dispute, an international incident, a war, it was shown to be the other guy who started it? Altering the sequence of events is changing the truth.

      P.S. Hans shot first.

    2. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by CougMerrik · · Score: 1

      Honestly, who wants to watch the USA go in, and then sit there for another 3 hours while the other 150 nations march in with their 4 athletes a piece, and THEN come back to watch them light the torch?

      Who wants to learn that there's a place called "Micronesia", or that Georgia gets its own Olympic team if you aren't anxiously awaiting the your country's entrance? The Parade of Nations is good TV only if you're waiting for your country to show up. After that, most people probably don't care if you see the 4 guys from Mozambique. Light the torch already.

      On a side note, I didn't realize that the entire USA Olympic squad had just been out golfing before their entrance to the ceremonies. The USA squad looked even more dapper than the French, and that's just not right.

    3. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by Kredal · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Momento" sure made a lot more sense when it was shown on NBC!

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    4. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by the+phantom · · Score: 3, Funny

      Han shot before Hans.

    5. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by grantdh · · Score: 1

      "Worrying that they some how were altering the live feed is so dumb and inane that I can't even respond. People, take a frigging collective deep breath."

      It wasn't a live feed - live started at 8pm in Beijing which is GMT +8 - that's 7am in New York and 4am in Los Angeles. What time was it shown in your area?

      --

      I left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down...
    6. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by slashgrim · · Score: 1

      but why?

    7. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by Diag · · Score: 1

      Honestly, who wants to watch the USA go in, and then sit there for another 3 hours while the other 150 nations march in with their 4 athletes a piece, and THEN come back to watch them light the torch?

      I live in a country that starts with an A, so we are usually one of the first few teams to come out, and we are sports-mad, so our team is relatively large. I think it is kinda cool to be the first "big" team to come out. This time, we were one of the last.

      Who wants to learn that there's a place called "Micronesia"

      Umm, people who have an interest in the world outside their own borders?

      --
      Serving Suggestion: Defrost
    8. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Really?

      Well...

      1. Isildur gets killed.
      2. Smeagol finds the Ring.
      3. Gandalf fights Saruman.
      4. Gandalf fights Balrog.
      5. The Fellowship runs through Moria.
      6. The Fellowship arrives at Rivendel
      7. The Fellowship arrives at Lothlurien
      8. The Fellowship arrives at Shire.
      9. The Council of Elrond.
      10. Frodo looks in Galadriel's Mirror
      11. Frodo arrives at Mt. Doom.
      12. Frodo fights Shelob
      13. Frodo gets stabbed by Nazgyl. ...you mean something like this, by "editing movies"?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    9. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you are kidding. Otherwise, /. should be deprived of all rights to comment on anything. Smartasses like ./ers should at least check wikipedia before screaming "OMG".

    10. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the minor difference that editing is acknowledged in the movies. As opposed to during "live" sports. This is not a newsreel of some historical event, its purported to be a live telecast. How would you feel if they altered the contents of the superbowl while it was on ?

    11. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      realize that this stuff is filmed by more cameras then you can even begin to contemplate AND is filled with people from all around the world to serve as witnesses.

      On a few occasions NBC played sound from the audience as nations entered. NBC made a special point of noting the audience's reaction to Iraq and Iran. The audience cheered for Iraq but not for Iran. It sounded to me like they were cheering for North Korea before NBC cut off the feed. Did those things really happen? The International Olympic Committee has granted NBC the sole ability to broadcast the games in the US so I have no way to verify, despite the witnesses who probably don't remember.

    12. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The trigger didn't actually move on the old movie props. Han just pointed his gun and greedo died. Later, a team of animators shot, and it was edited together to present the order of events most of us are familiar with.

      Later still it was re-edited for a different version of events, but that is a story for another time.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    13. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I remember in the NBC broadcast the cheers for the US were amoung the loudest of any country except for China itself. I was actually surprised by that and still have doubts about that situation.

      It was almost impossible to judge the response to many countries due to the constant stream of trivia being dolled out by the NBC broadcasters. They did make half hearted efforts to stop talking for crowd reaction but it was not done even handedly. For many countries you could not even hear the announcer present the name of the country so obtaining any real sense of crowd reaction from the broadcast was in my estimate a lost cause.

    14. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

      I saw a film on US TV one of the occasions I was there. It was so badly chopped down it was barely coherent. I can't believe people put up with such nonsense.

      Of course there is craziness in the reverse situation too; the BBC not only show films in full - *but with no ad breaks* and what do the British do? Complain about their TV licence despite the fantastic output of BBC with the freedom it gives them.

      I'm certainly glad we get BBC here in Ireland, although usually our national broadcaster RTÃ isn't too bad for films - film ad breaks are usually less frequent than the norm - maybe every half hour (or less if it is late night and less viewers).

      Admittedly most of my recent film viewing on TV has been old films on TCM and random free film channels on Sky Digital (Astra 28 deg E). Still watch from the DVD collection half the time, but I have actually been introduced to some great films on these channels.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    15. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do this to squish down time and show more ads.

      Fixed that for you.

    16. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That reminds me of this cool movie called Memento...

    17. Re:OMGWTF!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Olympic broadcast WAS 4 hours long on Tampa, FL's NBC station.

      It lasted from 8p to 12 a eastern time. It was also unaltered except for commercials which were followed by recaps (also in proper order). I didn't see all of the 3a rerun so I can't say how accurate it was. That would likely be the more altered TV presentation.

  29. Re:Did anyone else see by Shihar · · Score: 1

    That ass hole. Did he want to know the time? What an ass. A cool president would just sit there looking all clam and collected and shit and not check the time. I bet that jerk also went to the bathroom to piss like a human.

    Uh, I hate Bush like the other 90% of the world does too... but get a grip.

  30. Yes, and while by cdrom600 · · Score: 1

    I usually hate to defend Bush, but I have to point out that he was probably suffering from an extreme case of jet lag at that point.

  31. Re:Did anyone else see by westyvw · · Score: 1

    Check his watch and look terribly bored? Oh yeah, talk about editing. But I did sigh, as a leader should at least feign interest.

  32. who got sick of the constant zooming on each scene by Locutus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was some incredible scenes to see but NBC camera people must have been told to zoom every camera and it diminished the quality IMO. The designers didn't create the imagery for moving viewers or moving cameras/lenses.

    It really became an annoyance and a disappointment.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  33. NBC is the WORST network for sports by acvh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Dick Ebersole, who runs NBC Sports, is on record as saying that it is his goal to get better ratings, no matter what. That's why NBC doesn't post the running score of a football game, because they want you to stay and wait for it.

    It's why they show all those personal profiles instead of sporting events. It's why they edited the opening games. It's why we can't see live events in the US.

    1. Re:NBC is the WORST network for sports by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      That's funny I thought it was the personal profiles instead of sporting events which caused NBC's ratings to plummet.

      ABC used to run the olympic coverage as if it was a spectacular sporting event... and guess what... they got way better ratings. NBC took over had sob stories every 3 seconds. Skipped FINALS for some sports in order to show figure skaters practicing and warming up... and then was shocked and amazed to see that their ratings plummeted.

      NBC and their soft focus, diffusion, melodrama, lifetime shit has ruined the olympics and they've payed the price in viewership. They need to start actually covering the olypmics instead of the cheesy hallmark bumpers.

    2. Re:NBC is the WORST network for sports by geoff2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dick Ebersole, who runs NBC Sports, is on record as saying that it is his goal to get better ratings, no matter what. That's why NBC doesn't post the running score of a football game, because they want you to stay and wait for it.

      Have you ever watched an NBC broadcast of a football game? They show the score of a game the entire time.

    3. Re:NBC is the WORST network for sports by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice 1994 post. Ever since Sunday Night Football moved to NBC, there's been a running score line at the bottom.

    4. Re:NBC is the WORST network for sports by bitrex · · Score: 1
      NBC's Olympic event schedule:

      Biography of Michael Phelps

      a Michael Phelps swimming event

      Michael Phelps swims the 100 meter freestyle

      The Michael Phelps Story

      Buy Coca Cola, Buy Cell Phone, Buy ExxonMobil

      Beach Volleyball

      Beach Volleyball

      The Misty May Story

      The Triumph of Misty May

      Beach Volleyball

      Michael Phelps swims 400 meter butterfly

      Swimming

      Swimming

      Beach Volleyball

      Buy Coca Cola, buy Cell Phone, buy ExxonMobil

      Michael Phelps Swims Some Other Event

      Beach Volleyball

      On day 16 they'll show 15 minutes of horse riding.

    5. Re:NBC is the WORST network for sports by tresriogrande · · Score: 1

      How would these get them better ratings? They do exactly the opposite. Hate those personal profiles clips. Just awful. Same old story lines from 4 years, 8 years ago and 12 years ago. The athlete grandma's clip could be used and you can't tell the difference. Who cares? Show the damn event. Thats what everyone was waiting for, not their personal stories.

  34. They just not used English country names... by franciscou · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "As Chinese is written in characters and not letters, the order of the teams' entry was determined by the number of strokes in the first character of their respective countries' Simplified Chinese names." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics_Opening_Ceremony#Parade_of_nations

  35. Re:Did anyone else see by sconeu · · Score: 1

    1992 called. They want their George H.W. Bush debate footage back.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  36. I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Who the fuck cares about the Olympics?

    1. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by p0tat03 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is more than a bunch of athletes my friend. Go back and watch the opening ceremonies, and tell me that country does not scare the fuck out of you. The level of discipline demonstrated by the performers, the sheer precision of it all... it all far exceeds anything the West could possibly pull off. And that's DAMNED scary.

      China is living proof that, if not bound by troublesome concepts like fairness, freedom, and morality, you can achieve great things. That scares the bejesus out of me. The entire Olympic exercise, for China at least, is one of intimidation. Here's them flexing their muscle, showing the world that, at a moment's notice, they can throw away billions, not feel the pinch, mobilize hundreds of thousands of people without any messy bureaucracy, and completely transform the entire city nearly overnight (well, 6 years, that's damned short).

    2. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Zombie · · Score: 1

      You're not the only one. Mod parent up. Sports competition does not lead to the improvement of the human condition, and nationalistic competition certainly doesn't. Now, if every nation would actually stop fighting for the duration as was the case in the original ancient games, there'd be some redeeming value, but obviously Russia and Georgia (or any other fighting group) haven't been paying attention.

    3. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by speedlaw · · Score: 2

      I too noted the subtext of the opening ceremonies. We're here, we are powerful, and we are co-ordinated. The fact that the only soldiers were as flag honor guards didn't slow this up one iota. Only the fact that we are trading partners saves us from a US/USSR situation. OK, we buy their stuff, they rip off all of our ideas sent over, and they buy up our bonds. Still, this was a monument to socialist style propaganda, and it worked...very well. Always remember that this is a long lived contiguous society, who regards the west as...savages.

    4. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by p0tat03 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One thing that really hit me was how quickly they were able to expand their airport to accommodate for the Olympics. They now have the world's largest airport terminal, built up in almost no time at all. My home town (Vancouver, Canada) took nearly 20 years to build a single runway, between budget cutbacks, protests by residents, regulatory red tape, etc etc. Meanwhile here's a country that can completely rebuild an airport, make it into the world's largest, and still have time to make it an architectural masterpiece, all in 6 years. It's breathtaking and scary.

      who regards the west as...savages.

      Not really, they regard the West as hypocrites. The state media likes to play up images like Abu Ghraib and the various things going on at Gitmo. It's not entirely baseless, and that's the sad part.

    5. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Shin-LaC · · Score: 1

      You must have missed the piano girl yawning and scratching her nose.

    6. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Renaming "smog" as "mist" does not completely transform Beijing.

    7. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is more than a bunch of athletes my friend. Go back and watch the opening ceremonies, and tell me that country does not scare the fuck out of you. The level of discipline demonstrated by the performers, the sheer precision of it all... it all far exceeds anything the West could possibly pull off. And that's DAMNED scary.

      Yeah, they even beat the West in terms of carrying flags upside down. At least when the Americans carried a flag upside-down, it was a Canadian flag. That little runt of a kid they pulled out of the earthquake was carrying his own country's flag upside-down.

      The only part of the ceremony that scared the fuck out of me was that nobody dared mention it on air, nor did anyone in the Chinese parade dare swap the kid's flag for one that was right-side-up.

      An upside-down flag is an international signal of distress. In context of a political display, that kid was basically saying "My government hasn't even begun to help rebuild my village after the earthquake".

      Precision? Discipline? Someone should have at seen a fuckup like an upside-down flag (your own flag, on the two most visible representatives of your country in the entire stadium) before the kid got into the arena. Comical.

      The entire Olympic exercise, for China at least, is one of intimidation. Here's them flexing their muscle, showing the world that, at a moment's notice, they can throw away billions, not feel the pinch, mobilize hundreds of thousands of people without any messy bureaucracy, and completely transform the entire city nearly overnight (well, 6 years, that's damned short).

      ...but are so beholden to authority that not one person on the ground decided to fix the kid's flag. Everyone either pretended not to see it, or assumed that someone higher-up had decreed that the kid's flag was supposed to be upside-down, and were too scared to hand the kid a flag that was right-side up.

      There's a message in there about Chinese culture, too, and I don't think it was the one they wanted to send.

    8. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by fireheadca · · Score: 1

      Um, Olympians of course. Everyone else couldn't give a rats fart.

    9. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1, Funny

      " The GOP is living proof that, if not bound by troublesome concepts like fairness, freedom, and morality,... "

      Fixed your typo.

      HTH!

      HAND!

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    10. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFS, she's only five. Give the brainwashing a few more years.

    11. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One thing that really hit me was how quickly they were able to expand their airport to accommodate for the Olympics. They now have the world's largest airport terminal, built up in almost no time at all. My home town (Vancouver, Canada) took nearly 20 years to build a single runway, between budget cutbacks, protests by residents, regulatory red tape, etc etc. Meanwhile here's a country that can completely rebuild an airport, make it into the world's largest, and still have time to make it an architectural masterpiece, all in 6 years. It's breathtaking and scary.

      Before you all fall over yourself, it's entirely possible to do something of the like in the West too - when it matters enough. The Gemini/Mecury/Apollo programs in the 1960s for example, things got done when you're on the clock and national pride is in the balance. It's just rather hard to get that kind of support going...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      synchronized dancing and extravagant lighting won't save anyone from a nuclear bomb

    13. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by servognome · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who the fuck cares about the Olympics?

      Everybody should, it's one of the battlefields for Cold Wars. Countries with nukes can't fight each other directly, but they can use the world stage for cultural fights. They show off their achievements to intimidate and convince people their way is superior.
      This year's Olympics are China's version of the moon landing

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    14. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by p0tat03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's just rather hard to get that kind of support going...

      Damn right, especially these days, where the lack of the fear of communism has made driving these massive projects impossible. The problem is that the West requires consensus (or at least something resembling it) to do anything of that scale. China just has to have one guy snap his fingers.

      Absolute power, when wielded by someone who knows how to use it, is very, very dangerous for his neighbours.

    15. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Meanwhile here's a country that can completely rebuild an airport, make it into the world's largest, and still have time to make it an architectural masterpiece, all in 6 years. It's breathtaking and scary.

      Any country could do that.
      They just have to have the money and the will to cut through the red tape.

      The difference between China & the USA is that in the USA, one City accepts the honor. In China, the Central Government is in charge.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    16. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, American Jazz and Hip Hop won't be worth a damn when that silvery looking rain comes from over the horizon and towards the west coast... and east... and everywhere in between.

    17. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that any western country could pull it off. We just don't care to.

      Who is going to pay 2500 men to practice a 4 minute drum piece for three months?

      With our living standards (rent, food, all the cost-of-living expenses) that gets pretty high. Plus you you are going to want high quality people. Well, in under-developed places, a large percentage of high quality people don't have jobs or have low-enough level jobs for them to be willing and able to give up to work on a 3 month job that ended today.

      Plus, how many times has the US staged an Olympics? Shoot, practically every large western country has already hosted the Olympics so there wont be too many people willing to sacrifice their own lives (time) to do something for the country. Plus, no country is going to spend the $10-$20-$100? million it cost jsut for the opening ceremony!

      I don't necessarily fear China (I go once every 3 months for work) or Chinese people. They're just a large mass. They're the USSR in Axis&Allies. No weapons or machinery, but every round, you get a ridiculous amount of man power.

    18. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like China is pouring more money into this thing than they expect to get back (stimulating the local economy, etc) from the people flying in to watch the games. It's not like their citizens can complain about the taxes.

    19. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong on every account there chum. And you claim to visit China often too... pay some sort of attention next time why don't you?

    20. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... protests by residents, regulatory red tape, etc etc. Meanwhile here's a country that can completely rebuild an airport, make it into the world's largest, and still have time to make it an architectural masterpiece, all in 6 years. It's breathtaking and scary.

      No, not really. In western countries, you spend most of that time going through the planning process and dealing with protests by citizens. It can easily take 10-15 years (due to the rights of residents, environmental/safety/etc issues) before you can start construction. China just paves over said citizens and has no regulations when it comes to what the government wants to happen.

    21. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Chinese-American, I must say you are doing a good job sounding the part of a stereotypical clueless Westerner who likes to apply his own standards to the rest of the world, free of context.

      China is living proof that, if not bound by troublesome concepts like fairness, freedom, and morality, you can achieve great things.

      Seriously, like wtf? That seems like a pretty sweeping generalization about 1.3 billion people. Most mainland Chinese people that I interact with, my parents' included, admire the West for its achievements in raising the quality of life for people, but at the same time find many Westerners rude, self-absorbed egoists. Sure, traditional Chinese culture places more emphasis importance of thinking for those around you and being accommodating, even at large personal cost. I don't see why that means morality went out the window, and I quite frankly find your comments insulting and stupid.

      You're a Canadian, so this doesn't get addressed directly to you, but most white Americans I talk to, if we ever get into talking politics, will bring up how repressive the Chinese government is, the lack of human rights, etc. It's a litany of complaints that I'm used to hearing, and it's also an incredibly naive attitude based on ignorance. A significant portion of China lived on the verge of starvation less than 40 years ago, and to people who recently didn't have enough to eat, talk about human rights, freedom of speech, and all these products of the Enlightenment seem foregn and frivolous. The vast majority of Chinese, especially the younger generation, are extremely pro-government and nationalistic, because for all the government's failings, it has provided stability and a better life for a generation of people. Until people like you understand where most Chinese are coming from, you're never going to understand what motivates a good portion of humanity.

      I was in Vancouver recently, and I know there's a large influx of Chinese and Taiwanese immigrants nearby in Richmond. For your sake, I do hope you take the time to talk to people and see where they're coming from.

      But then again, this is Slashdot :)

    22. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...while the IOC is rubbing their hands with glee and bathing in boatloads of cash made from their aggressive protection of trademark and "official" Olympics sponsors and partners.
      It's crap, it doesn't have anything to do with politics or sports, it's the biggest moneygrab in the history disguised as something we should care about.

    23. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohmygod...have you filled your basement with guns yet? It's paranoid freaks like you that lead to the terrorists we see today! Have you not noticed the TRILLIONS that WE are throwing away for an illegal and ill-conceived war? Either you're certifiably paranoid, or you're jealous of the power that the Chinese have. You retards need to read a little, get an education, and see that the world doesn't revolve around YOU! I'll tell you here and now, that country doesn't frighten me nearly as much as the freakin' right-wing element in my own country! It's the leaders that YOU elected that give China that power - have you noticed the jobs that are going overseas? That's the corporations that YOUR so-called conservative leaders have been kissing on the butt, bowing to the almighty dollar. Sucky as it sounds, that's the FREE MARKET, and you likely voted for it. So, Suck it!

    24. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by slashqwerty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China spent $40 billion* over six years getting ready for the Olympics. The US spends less than half of that on the Iraq war every six months. If we had the will we could do the same thing China did.

      The Beijing Olympics are a huge matter of national pride in China. As others have mentioned the United States has had its moments of national pride. That's what drove us to the moon over the course of eight years. The moon landings cost us over three times what China spent preparing for the Olympics.

      The US, UK, and Canada managed to develop nuclear weapons over the course of five years at a cost of $28 billion in today's dollars. We built the Panama Canal in ten years. We developed a cure for polio in 40 years. It's not so hard to imagine building an airport or even sprucing up an entire city from airport to subway to stadiums if there were a factor driving us to do so.

      *China reportedly budgeted $2 billion for the event itself and over $100 million just on fireworks.

    25. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Animats · · Score: 1

      They now have the world's largest airport terminal, built up in almost no time at all.

      It's not the largest airport. It's just that they chose to build a really big single terminal, instead of going to a ring of smaller ones like most other big airports. DFW (Dallas-Fort Worth) is substantially bigger, and Atlanta and Heathrow have far more traffic.

    26. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by qoncept · · Score: 1

      I'm sure plenty of people felt the pinch of the money China has spent on the Olympics. Certainly none of the people of a social standing that would allow them to attend Olympic events, but maybe a billion others.

      --
      Whale
    27. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scary?

      No.

      This is stuff we have seen before.

      If you're worried about that prospective bid to become a superpower, the story behind that little kid next to Yao is the one that should make you sit up and take notice.

      We have always said character is a part of our success.

      The character shown by that boy and elsewhere are either isolated incidents or the tip of the iceberg.

      I'm keeping an eye open here to see which case it is.

    28. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by traindirector · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An upside-down flag is an international signal of distress.

      Indeed, and I found Lin Hao carrying it a wonderful symbol of China's acknowledgement of the distress it experienced after the earthquake and the way in which China has finally become internationally open enough to let others know of its pain and to ask for assistance. The ceremony was full of contrasts, and the upside-down flag was just one more: the proud and powerful China walking next to the fragile and weak China that needs help (who is finally not afraid to ask for it). I found this and the other symbolism of the opening ceremony extremely moving.

      In context of a political display, that kid was basically saying "My government hasn't even begun to help rebuild my village after the earthquake".

      How did you interpret China parading both its strength and weakness, and the fact that it wants to display both to the world at this, one of its most important international moments, an anti-government message? How could you watch the almost unbelievable near-perfection of the rest of the ceremony (the printing press, the Tai Chi masters...) and think the flag could be an accident? It's really quite a stretch of the imagination.

      There's a message in there about Chinese culture, too, and I don't think it was the one they wanted to send.

      To me, they sent exactly the message I imagine they wanted to send. Perhaps they did fail at sending their message. But, if so, it was not a matter of the upside-down flag not being planned. Their failure would be that they expected you and the Western world to understand that their asking for help and letting their weakness and tragedy be seen is as important as a show of strength at the games.

      Perhaps the government-run media did crop the flag from the images released within China to manage the internal interpretation. Perhaps it was a controversial decision that not everyone important knew about ahead of time, and that someone with power disapproved of after seeing. I'm not saying that this symbolism matches at all how the government operates, even if it seems to be moving in that direction. I'm not saying that it's part of the government's ideology or plan. But for what it is not, it is a powerful message that is hard to believe was not deliberate and planned at some type of government-approved level.

      You are correct--I couldn't ever imagine seeing a US flag upside-down in an international ceremony. That's why I was especially touched to see China acknowledge their distress and their need for assistance in a way that my own country never would.

    29. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire investments leading up to these olympics constitute one day of GDP. They're not as poor as you would like to think anymore.

    30. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the West hypocrits is not at all baseless. We are. Here in Europe we like to think we are better, but we are just the same. At the very least we are hypocrits for laughing or being outraged at the hypocrisy of the US, when in fact we are pretty much just the same here.

      I remember hearing all these crazy stories about the US when I was in primary school in 1980s, and oh how we laughed at how absurd they were. Now Ireland is one of the richest countries in the world, and guess what? We are just the same now. Suburbanites, SUVs, wealth gap, crumbling society/crime problems, compensation culture, political correctness, chain stores and loss of cultural identity. A nation of Plastic Paddies. We are less and less distinguishable on St. Patrick's Day from the tourists that we laughed at so for being like children.

      The West is completely hypocritical, and despite supposed freedom and liberty and such, is not really a nice place for a lot of people. But sure as long as it is nice for us middle class folk that's all that matters, right?

      Disclaimer - no I would not like the China model either, or anything else that's been tried, e.g. Soviet Russia. But all the supposed communist cranks despite being wrong about communism, were accurate for the most parts in their observation of the West, capitalism, free market economics and even democracy as being completely broken. We are running on borrowed time - because even if we have the best system of a bad lot, it will not prove suitable for the long term. It is inevitable that it will collapse (albeit probably slowly crumbling).

    31. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, it's like the people involved were professionals!

    32. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck you fag

    33. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As others have pointed out, all of this is really just a matter of national priority.

      As a taxpayer I'd hate to have my national government pay billions of dollars to put on an athletic competition. I can see how providing standard police services and such are within the scope of a government, but throwing a huge party and entertainment show isn't.

      Look, humans are humans. There is nothing saying that the Europeans couldn't have landed on the moon if they wanted to spend that kind of money. The Chinese could have as well. Granted, at any given time particular nations have economies that are in various levels of repair - Europe or China probably couldn't have landed on the moon in the 60s even with a massively dedicated effort. However, either could probably do it today just fine.

      Ditto for throwing an entertainment event. It isn't like Chinese acrobats are any better than Mexican acrobats. Just look at the Soviet Chess program - it had huge state sponsorship and unsurprisingly they turned out far better chess players than nations in which people played chess for fun almost entirely without compensation. Today the program is a shadow of its former self - and it isn't becuase Russians are being born dumber.

      What all of this really demonstrates is the power of authoritarian governments to mobilize their entire nations around goals that are decided upon by a handful of those in power. A country with the economy of North Korea can mobilize more artillery tubes pointed at its rival than any nation in Europe. It isn't like the French don't know how to fashion a rifled cannon (gee, they've only been doing that for a century or so) - they just see the value in having millions of them pointed at Belgium. Likewise, I'm sure Germany could throw a 20 billion euro party if it wanted to, but I suspect the locals would rather see that money going into healthcare or maybe just into their own pockets.

      Granted, democratic nations do bread-and-circuses too (aka Iraq), but they at least need to convince their populations to go along with it - without the benefit of highly self-censored media (although clueless media helps with slight self-censorship).

    34. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      Not really, they regard the West as hypocrites. The state media likes to play up images like Abu Ghraib and the various things going on at Gitmo. It's not entirely baseless, and that's the sad part.

      Similarly, the West regard China as hypocrites. The western media likes to play up images like Tiananmen protester and the various things going on in Tibet. It's not entirely baseless, and that's the sad part.

    35. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by I+didn't · · Score: 1

      Absolute power, when wielded by someone who knows how to use it, is very, very effective .

      Fixed that for you.

    36. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, get your tin hats now!

    37. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by EEDAm · · Score: 1
      "This is more than a bunch of athletes my friend. Go back and watch the opening ceremonies, and tell me that country does not scare the fuck out of you. The level of discipline demonstrated by the performers, the sheer precision of it all... it all far exceeds anything the West could possibly pull off. And that's DAMNED scary"

      My friend, you are not wrong about that. Us Londoners get to do the next Olympics in 2012 and we were sat around watching the opening ceremony going 'ohshit...omfg...we are SO doomed'. And a bit later 'wtf are we going to celebrate about modern London? Teenage pregnancies? Knife crime?'!

    38. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      How come you have just noticed all this about China? They've been heading that way for decades now, ever since the death of Chairman Mao.

      I think the West should be relieved at China's (relative) lack of military aggression outside its borders, as it concentrates its efforts on the economy.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    39. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the economy, stupid. China puts the economy first, everything else second. But the economy *is* what keeps the masses happy -- some recently published study cited China and Russia as being *much* happier than the US, presumably because their economies are doing much better (for now). I wouldn't be surprised if some socio-economist argued that a good economy is what you need *before* all those wonderful nebulous things we take for granted.

      Either that, or China knows that most of the world would rather watch CGI fireworks than care about human rights. China isn't stupid, either.

    40. Re:I'm sure I'm the only one on the planet, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're scared because you're another one suffering from the old yellow-peril syndrome. Strange that the ones always crying about the repressed Chinese people are finding 'intimidation' from the sight of thousands of enthusiastic Chinese performing in precision.
      If Chinese strength and determination to transform their city and society in a constructive way scare you, I wonder how you feel about the US military industrial complex flexing their muscle and weapon around the world?

  37. AAAGGGHHH! by clang_jangle · · Score: 4, Funny

    ***We all point at you and shriek like Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers***

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:AAAGGGHHH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For anybody that don't get it (and don't intend to see that very formidable movie, as this is the end of it), it is there, starting at 1:50

  38. Stuff that matters by dauwhe · · Score: 1

    I once photocopied a book, and then dropped all the pages, and when I picked them up they were in the wrong order.

    1. Re:Stuff that matters by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      But did you read it in the wrong order? :-) Good joke though.

  39. Re:Did anyone else see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but I did see him treat his American flag like a drumstick.

  40. Specifics? by geoff2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I watched NBC's broadcast on TV of the opening ceremonies and followed along with the Wikipedia list for a bit (at least, the Wikipedia list as it appeared last night) from Great Britain to the United States, and they matched perfectly. I've still got it on my DVR, and if someone can give an actual example of this reordering besides linking to the NBC olympics website (not even the opening ceremony video), I can check it out, but otherwise this objection is ridiculous. A little specificity would be helpful.

  41. Did they change them to English alphabetical order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The order used was chinese alphabetical order I believe. Possibly they didn't think americans could handle them not being in english alphabetical order.

  42. NBC broadcast cut out many scenes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NBC actually cut out many parts of the opening ceremony including taking the olympic oath by the athletes. If you want the full broadcast, go find a torrent.

  43. Are you serious? by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

    Seriously??? You think they changed the order in the live feed? How would they do that, with a time machine?

    1. Re:Are you serious? by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

      um...
      12 HOUR TAPE DELAY.

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    2. Re:Are you serious? by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

      Then it wouldn't be "live", would it?

    3. Re:Are you serious? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      They recorded it live.

      --
  44. Ummm... if it was LIVE it CAN NOT be out of order by Afronautica · · Score: 1

    ...unless:

    A) NBC has some sort of time machine which allowed them to skip ahead into the future, tape events, and then go back in time and use that tape.

    B) The live wasn't actually live, but had a serious 30+ minute delay, which would mean you could see things on the 'Net feed a half hour to an hour before you could see them on TV.

  45. So what? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    Why does it matter in the slightest? This isn't ZOMGFLAIMBATE, I'm honestly puzzled.

  46. First post by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Oh, wait... Did Slashdot Alter the Discussion Ordering Ceremony?

  47. Lies by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

    What's really outrageous is that you're too stupid to understand that you just need to choose a random radio button. Any Radio Button. To get the exact same programming.

    Or that you could even select the "Over the Air" option.

    1. Re:Lies by vladsinger · · Score: 1

      I didn't see the over the air button. Considering the explanation for the list is "to confirm you are a paying subscriber", I doubt there is one.

    2. Re:Lies by truesaer · · Score: 1

      There actually is an antenna option. But it wont let you watch video if you pick that. Instead it encourages to you "change your selection." Considering none of us accepted any kind of license I don't see how picking wahtever you want it a problem.

      And if people do have some moral objection to that, why not just, you know...watch it on TV when it is actually aired? (and for other sports, tough, you're lucky we have any choice for watching shooting or fencing. In years past, you could do no better than reading the news recap the next day).

  48. Re:Did anyone else see by Swampash · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is how the Commander-in-Chief behaves in front of the world.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ_YhM4OGkU

  49. Is that really the best use of a time machine? by Krabbs · · Score: 1

    Suggesting that NBC canjumped back and forth in a _live_ broadcast makes me wonder if there weren't a better use of their time machine.

  50. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard from a friend that the order in the opening ceremony was alphabetical based on a traditional form of Chinese. When translated to English the order was naturally different.

  51. Media alters the "truth" by partowel · · Score: 0

    Am I surprised? NO.

    Will this happen again? YES.

    Will people stand up and say I will not allow and will not accept this alteration of events as they happened in the "real" world? Some will, most people will not give a damn.

    NBC will alter future events. NBC does not care about the truth. NBC wants MONEY.

    ALL MEDIA COMPANIES WANT MONEY!

    They will lie, cheat, obfuscate, alter, hide,
    change any story to make money.

    Conclusion : Trust NO ONE!

  52. Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by MagdJTK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While NBC may well have done what they are accused of (I wouldn't know, the BBC had it all live and unedited), it's not the most insulting thing they've done.

    They bribed the Chinese organisers of the Olympics to put certain events early in the morning (local time). The swimming starting soon is an example. Why? So they would be during prime time in America. This sound fair enough, until you realise that prime time in America is THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT IN EUROPE. So we get to miss half the events, just so it's a little more convenient for the Yanks. I mean, it's not like we invented the Olympics or anything...

    1. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by mindslut · · Score: 1

      yeah, the fat b@$t#rds, but look at it this way:

      we get internet video of the Olympics and the Internet unveils all truth (and even more non-truths) and

      At least NBC and mainstream US media hasn't discovered football yet (they are confused by some sport where the players wear helmets and carry the ball around over numbers painted on the grass)

      so, alas NBC misses the trick of bribing the Olympic officials to get football (soccer) on at a decent US hour - in fact better to have it on at 2 AM so they have an excuse to ignore it

      but come Winter Olympics and the fit little girls skating in their tights? You can be guaranteed no bribe is too big to get that into US prime time, and I say God bless the Network for that.

      It would all work better if it were like Italian Football - fairness comes when the other side is also bribing the officials ("I'm impartial, I took bribes from everyone!")

      cheers

    2. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by MmmmAqua · · Score: 4, Funny

      I mean, it's not like we invented the Olympics or anything...

      I didn't realize that the UK had such a big hand molding the games in ancient Greece. Thanks for clearing that up! I didn't know that!

      -Just another stupid American
      (tongue firmly in cheek, for the humor impaired)

      --
      Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
    3. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Evidence please... or by bribe do you mean the $900 NBC paid to the IOC for the rights to broadcast? I tried to find out if that's more then the rest of the world combined, but that information doesn't seem readily accessible through Google. In any case it's more than any other country paid by a large measure, therefore they will get some "special" treatment.

    4. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by Xuranova · · Score: 1

      If they are just switching the order of events and not actually paying to have dead time(as in NBC paid to have a time where are no events for U.S. convience) then no matter what there will be SOME events that happen in the middle of the night your time.

      You are just bitching cause it was an event you wanted to see. How about you and your boys get together and toss some euros at the problem to 'resolve' this situation or cry me a river. Have a good day.

      --
      "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
    5. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by bitrex · · Score: 1

      At least NBC and mainstream US media hasn't discovered football yet (they are confused by some sport where the players wear helmets and carry the ball around over numbers painted on the grass)

      American Football was most likely called "Football" to distinguish it from polo, which was also a popular game in the U.S. at the time. That is, a game played on one's feet, not on horseback.

      so, alas NBC misses the trick of bribing the Olympic officials to get football (soccer) on at a decent US hour - in fact better to have it on at 2 AM so they have an excuse to ignore it

      They don't need an excuse to ignore it - nobody in the U.S. watches soccer anyway.

      but come Winter Olympics and the fit little girls skating in their tights? You can be guaranteed no bribe is too big to get that into US prime time, and I say God bless the Network for that.

      Come the Winter Olympics you'll again get to engage in more U.S.-hating, which appears in general to be the world's favorite pastime.

    6. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually if you were at least half smart, you would understand that the "we" he was refering to was about the europeans and wasn't implying that it was the UK who 'invented' the Olympics.

      Your attempt to be funny = FAIL ;)

    7. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      prime time in America is THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT IN EUROPE. So we get to miss half the events,

      Yes, it's a real shame there's no possible way to record a live event, and wait to broadcast it later in the day.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by truesaer · · Score: 1

      The United States participated in the original 1896 summer games (the first Olympics of the "modern era"). So unless you're greek, you have no special claim to the games.

      Nonetheless, I prefer watching tape delay. Tonight they had a lot of weird dead time to fill between swimming events, they kept cutting to recorded gymnastics. It was all very choppy, I don't have any problem just seeing the taped and nicely edited version.

    9. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *pedant* i think he was using the collective 'we' as in Europe...
      however the UK did have *some* influence on the modern olympic games thanks to a place called much wenlock

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penny_Brookes

    10. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by MagdJTK · · Score: 1

      So unless you're greek, you have no special claim to the games.

      That was kind of my point --- it's the middle of the night for all of Europe, including Greece.

    11. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We the europeans :)

    12. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come the Winter Olympics you'll again get to engage in more U.S.-hating, which appears in general to be the world's favorite pastime.

      Actually the world's favorite pastime is more hating in general. We hear about the US stuff because *gasp* it's pertinent to us. Laos hates Lichtenstein doesn't get much play in the rest of the world.

      Apart from which exporting US values though our popular culture is no bad thing but bemoaning that other cultures then echo some of our introspective, self-critical values back at us seems oversensitive. We're the ones who created Michael "False Flag" Moore and we sold him to the rest of the world.

    13. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by truesaer · · Score: 1

      And my point is so what? Many Olympics have had their major events during the middle of the night in North/South America (such as those held in Europe).

      Beijing is 5 hours ahead of Greece, so if they want to have live primetime coverage from 7-11pm like we have in the states the athletes would have to be competing from midnight to 4am.
      For primetime live coverage, it simply doesn't make any sense to schedule it to accomodate Europe. And it makes plenty of sense for the Americas.

      Furthermore, there are some events scheduled for convenient live coverage in Europe. As an example, next Sunday many of the gymnastics final events will be held in the evening in Beijing, which will make for convenient live coverage through the afternoon for Europe. And in the Americas it will be the middle of the night.

      Take off your tin foil hat, drop your instinct for outrage and realize that everyone will see some events live and everyone will miss some events. It has nothing to do with bribes or anti-europeanism or any of this other nonsense.

    14. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by billnapier · · Score: 1

      Your broadcasters had equal opportunity to bribe as well...

    15. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      American Football was most likely called "Football" to distinguish it from polo, which was also a popular game in the U.S. at the time. That is, a game played on one's feet, not on horseback.

      Unlikely, as the origins of American football lie in the game of rugby, which, way back in time was called football. The UK rugby associations still have the word 'football' in their name, and Australia has its (rougher) variant called Australian football. A Kiwi friend of mine claims that in the good old days, when sports was done by gentlemen, a game of football (soccer) was played, in which it happened that this scoundrel, Lord Rugby, picked up the ball with his hands and started running to the goal with it. Of course his opponents couldn't let him get away with that and started pursuit to stop him reaching that.

      A new game was born and we're paying the price of inapt naming ever since.

    16. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, the *modern* Olympics were more or less invented by the French, and made viable by British competitiveness... probably out of determination to put the cap on a century of whipping the French...

    17. Re:Not the most disrespectful behaviour. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind that a plurality of Americans are of mostly European ancestry - we have as much to do with the ancient Greek Olympiad as you do.

  53. Yes, Online is out of order by pikap · · Score: 1

    Yes, the online one is out of order. What makes it so glaring is at one point, then mention that the US will be next after the commercial break. After the break, Uruguay was shown instead of the US, and is not shown until much later online. The broadcast feed on TV was not at least not done in the order that you're seeing online. I hope this answers your question. It's a bit frustrating to see no one answering the question, but talking about how evil/manipulative big media is.

  54. How is this an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your president didn't even know when to stand up (only fot the USA itself) and not for the different countries (states/islands) that belong to the US.

    Each time when one of those countries walked in, your president was sitting on his chair, bored to death. I guess he did't even know which countries belong to the USA and where he is president.

    1. Re:How is this an issue by Andraax · · Score: 1

      None of the US Territories that had Olympic Teams are "incorporated" areas, and therefore Bush is not their President. They do not vote for the President, they send no electors to the Electoral College, and they each have their own governments.

      Perhaps you should do a bit of reaearch before making offhand comments?

  55. Might I suggest... by actionbastard · · Score: 1

    that the order was altered by the simple fact that it was observed and that for each of the observers, the order was different.

    --
    Sig this!
  56. Silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, but you are really getting hard up for something to be outraged about if you are worried that the parade of nations was broadcast out of order.

  57. Big deal. by BCW2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    NBC hasn't done any honest reporting on anything in over 30 years. Why would anyone be surprised at this?

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    1. Re:Big deal. by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      Flamebait huh? If I'd said the same thing about Fox it would be +5 Insightful. Makes you wonder about the double standard being so obvious.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  58. Remember Atlanta? by furry_wookie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I noticed the IOC threw an absolute fit over the use of Army Rangers for some portions of the opening ceremonies in Atlanta in 1996. (They pleaded for the Rangers to not perform their contribution in uniform. They didn't.)

    But I don't think the guys who raised the Olympic flag while GOOSE-STEPPING in China were members of the local Beijing Boy Scout troop.

    Fucking IOC Hypocrites.

    --
    -- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
    1. Re:Remember Atlanta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on.. Traditional military goose-stepping is no more wrong than, say, the tibetan swastika, right ?

    2. Re:Remember Atlanta? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but you haven't factored in what a petty snivelling twat you are.

      Once you include that data, your worldview will start to make perfect sense.

      Don't mention it.

  59. Re:Did anyone else see by Fleeced · · Score: 1

    President Bush check his watch during the parade?

    He did?!

    Keep up the good work vandelais - President Bush can't be allowed to get away with this!

    Seriously people, get some perspective.

  60. RE: NBC altering Opening Ceremony by sakurakira · · Score: 1

    Was this true only online, or also in the live broadcast?

    The Opening Ceremony shown in the US on Friday was not live. In fact, right at the beginning it said "Previously Recorded." On CNN in the afternoon, they even had an article titled "Chinese president declares Olympics officially open," which is an event that takes place in the Opening Ceremony. China is 12 hrs ahead of the US East Coast. It could not have been shown live, as there were fireworks and darkness throughout the ceremony that daylight would have made impossible.

    As far as the order goes, they did mention a couple of times during the television broadcast that the order was not what we were used to, and explained the stroke-number-system that the Chinese organizers were using. It was a bit odd watching, but it made sense to me. Glancing at the list on Wikipedia, I seem to remember the countries being ordered that way. So the TV broadcast and the Wikipedia lists match.

    They also briefly showed us the countries that we missed while we were away during the commercial break.

    I'm not going to watch the online version, so I can't compare to that. The Parade of Nations is very boring, and I can live until the Winter Olympics in 2010 before seeing it again.

    One way to compare the accuracy between the TV broadcast and the online version would be to look at the bottom third graphics. Because of the different order system, they had a dimmed out preview of the next three countries, in a slider that moved along. So, if the online version has those graphics, and the images presented match up with the list shown on Wikipedia, then it is the same version... Yes, I know they could have edited those too, but I'd rather not get out my tin foil hat.

  61. Joys of a Delayed Broadcast by grantdh · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sounds like the did stuff around with the order the teams marched in. They certainly had enough time to do it - it was delayed half a day from when it really happened.

    Opening ceremony was at 8pm on the 8th of August 2008 (Chinese like 8 - it's a lucky number :) and Beijing is at GMT+8. Some of the folks here in Melbourne, Australia were watching it that night live (about 10pm onwards local time). Based on the twitter feeds from those in the USA who were tweeting what they saw, it looked like they were watching it around 8pm on the 8th in THEIR time zone. Somewhat impossible, no?

    I'm already hearing reports of US swimmers being coached to refer to the time of their race in US broadcast time rather than Beijing time. Ummmmmm - WTF?

    So yeah, if you've got HOURS between recording the event and showing it then making any changes you want is a piece of cake.

    --

    I left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down...
    1. Re:Joys of a Delayed Broadcast by bitrex · · Score: 1

      I'm already hearing reports of US swimmers being coached to refer to the time of their race in US broadcast time rather than Beijing time. Ummmmmm - WTF?

      The swimming events I've seen this evening in the U.S. have been live - if the event is indeed "live" then what problem is there in referring to the event as having taken place at such-and-such a time local?

    2. Re:Joys of a Delayed Broadcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm watching a Volleyball match on NBC here in San Diego that has "Live" on the screen, yet NBCOlympics.com has the official score of the match, so I no longer believe anything broadcast during these Olympics will be "Live"

    3. Re:Joys of a Delayed Broadcast by grantdh · · Score: 1

      "The swimming events I've seen this evening in the U.S. have been live - if the event is indeed "live" then what problem is there in referring to the event as having taken place at such-and-such a time local?"

      'cos they're talking "local to US time" which is evening while in Beijing it's during the morning, so having them say "This evening" is a little odd - especially when the coverage is also being used by non-US countries. For instance, in Australia, they're watching going "Hang on, this evening isn't for another 4 hours, what? Huh? Crazy yanks" and so on :) :)

      Nothing major - just wierd - like stopping a game because the TV coverage needs to show an advert (instead of the TV station either waiting for breaks in the game or hoping they don't miss any action :)

      --

      I left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down...
    4. Re:Joys of a Delayed Broadcast by pavera · · Score: 1

      Happen to check the "results" pages of any major news organization while you were watching that "live" broadcast? I did, and although the word "LIVE" was plastered all over, and the commentators kept stating the broadcast was "LIVE", the results of all of the events were already available.

      I don't think any of this is being broadcast live.

      Also, it is very strange. I just saw an interview with Phelps who was talking about an upcoming event and stated "I'm just trying to make sure I'm prepared for the relay tomorrow morning, I mean evening". That is just idiotic to make the athletes try to advertise the broadcaster's schedule for them. They have enough on their minds, and enough to do they don't need to constantly be checking in to know "when are you actually broadcasting my event".

  62. Mr. Godwin please pick up the red courtesy phone. by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

    Indeed. I believe the practice started with the 1936 Berlin Olympics when the German newsreels showed only negatives of all of the track and field events, so that a white Jesse Owens could be seen beating the pants off of all the black athletes.

  63. I call BS by bziman · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I just sat through the four and a half hours of the opening ceremony that was aired last night on NBC here in the States (thank you TiVo), and as far as I can tell, it matched the order listed on Wikipedia pretty well. Even when they cut to commercial (shockingly infrequently), when they came back, the announcers went quickly through the missed countries, to catch back up to real time. Considering the soundtrack playing in the background while the countries were being read over the public address system in three languages, it would be pretty obvious if they skipped around, and the music and crowd noise suddenly changed. Politics aside, that's one of the coolest cultural and artistic displays I've ever seen.

  64. They ALTERED the CROWD NOISE too. by furry_wookie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to friends in Europe, who watched the ceremonies live NBC totally used FAKE CROWD noise.

    Apparently Vladimir Putin from Russia got the biggest crowd applause all night when they showed him on the big screen, and the Iraq athletes were given loud BOO's.

    And all we heard all night long were the exact same levels of 'monotone cheering' on the NBC broadcast.

    Don't believe ANYTHING you see on TV, especially if they had 12 hours to make changes,edits,lies.

    --
    -- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
    1. Re:They ALTERED the CROWD NOISE too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I remember it from the delayed broadcast, Iraq got the loudest cheers, the US got the second loudest, France was third, Russia and Great Britain was somewhat lukewarm, and Iran was almost booed.

      Of course, right now, I suppose this is a pointless discussion, as the live broadcast is forever in the past, and any recording can be manipulated, so we will never know for sure how events transpired.

    2. Re:They ALTERED the CROWD NOISE too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your tinfoil hat is a bit tight there buddy. I watched the NBC West Coast Broadcast, and the crowd was far from monotonous. They cheered at all the countries you would expect the Chinese to cheer at. I think your European friends are having a laugh at your expense.

      FWIW, I was following the NBC West Coast broadcast while looking at the order on Wikipedia (so I could take bathroom breaks without missing countries I care about), and it seemed to be following it spot on.

    3. Re:They ALTERED the CROWD NOISE too. by ZwJGR · · Score: 1

      I watched it live on BBC, and I didn't hear a single boo during the entire ceremony...

      Iraq just got an "ordinary" cheer as they emerged (AFAIR).

      Russia certainly got a big cheer when they emerged, and while I don't recall Putin coming up on the big screen, I'm pretty sure that he would get a big cheer as you said.

      --
      There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
    4. Re:They ALTERED the CROWD NOISE too. by russotto · · Score: 1

      They cheered at all the countries you would expect the Chinese to cheer at.

      The only conspicuous lack of cheering was for Iran.

    5. Re:They ALTERED the CROWD NOISE too. by djcooley · · Score: 1

      I watched the ceremony live, from Shenzhen, China. The crowd I was in (~200 people) was about 95% Chinese, and they cheered loudly for both the Russian and American athletes. This also carried over to the respective leaders. As far as I could tell, the same took place in the Olympic stadium, although it was hard to hear over the cheers of the people I was with. The only group that received a cool welcome was the Japanese delegation.

    6. Re:They ALTERED the CROWD NOISE too. by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apparently Vladimir Putin from Russia got the biggest crowd applause all night when they showed him on the big screen, and the Iraq athletes were given loud BOO's.

      Apparently, someone didn't notice that Iraq was barred from participating in the Olympics this year.

  65. Not really a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unless they alter the order of the medalists...

  66. First post!! by mindstormpt · · Score: 1

    First time in years!

  67. Disney too by Mike_ya · · Score: 1

    The Disney Christmas day parade is actually shot in November, or was it October. I can't quite remember.
    Boss + family got to go down and see it.

    So no surprise with the Olympics.
    M

  68. Zimbabwe and Tunisia as proof by bean2 · · Score: 1

    For the people who are not believing the order was changed: Zimbabwe and Tunisia show up before the US delegation on the NBC broadcast, where in reality they came after the US.

  69. Edited the "live"?? broadcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no way we could see a ~live~ broadcast in Prime Time (night) in the U.S. of an event that took place at night in China. Since we could see the dark sky and bright fireworks in the broadcast, and it was dark here while I watched it, simple astronomy tells me the broadcast could not be live. Since it was "recorded earlier" how does editing it differ from editing America's Got Talent?
    Even if, by the time we saw it, the order of events was different from the order in which it happened, how is this a violation of our contract with NBC?

  70. Don't watch the olympics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free tibet.

    1. Re:Don't watch the olympics by strelitsa · · Score: 1

      Do they still charge VAT?

      --
      No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
  71. They cut a lot! by humaniverse · · Score: 1

    The whole ceremony lasted 4.4 hours without any commercial interruption from CCTV1/5/7. I watched the whole live ceremony (don't ask how). I guarantee you NBC cut about at least 1/5. Who has more censoring?

  72. I see why now... by sycodon · · Score: 1

    ...they didn't fix the audio and video cut outs and glitches in the TWELVE hours between the real deal and the tape delay. They were too busy screwing with cutting and pasting the athletes.

    Freaking morons.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  73. screw the olympics by British · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I've never liked the Olympics due to the overwhelming amount of political crap that goes around it. Suddenly, sites that host the olympics turn into a police state. Friendly merchants now gouge the hell out of everyone. The IOC act like they are some sort of immortal god when it comes to anything olympics related, seeming to trump state & local government authority. And that's not even the dirty politics that people play just to get the olympics hosted in their neck of the woods.

    Having it hosted in China seems like an Orwellian match made in haven. At least they did one thing nice to combat the smog: they postponed burning of political prisoners(okay, that was a joke).

    Its not like there was any good summer programming on NBC anyways.

  74. Jesus, techmuse must be on to something here... by east+coast · · Score: 0, Troll

    They must have edited out when the aliens finally introduced themselves to the planet earth at the opening events. It was edited out by the evil bastard Bush. He wants to keep you in the dark about our new extra-terrestrial friends because they're going to do away with the oil industry and that's going to run the Bush family broke!

    Or maybe techmuse's tin foil hat is just a little too tight...

    Wake me up when there is some real news.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  75. BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it really matter? With Tivo, DVRs, and internet TV viewing, I have become used to watching content that interests me, in bits and pieces, and fast-forwarding through everything else. This sounds like a problem that doesn't need fixing.

  76. Re:DOLL by bitrex · · Score: 1

    Gold medal in the Markov chain event.

  77. Avoiding Wardrobe Malfunction by teko_teko · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they want to avoid another "Wardrobe Malfunction" going live on air...

  78. try Channel 34 by alfredo · · Score: 1

    http://www.justin.tv/channel34

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  79. Saving the best for last by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    Almost all TV shows (especially the news) save the hot item for last so as to keep the audience watching the whole show. It happened regularly on Ed Sullivan and Carson. If you show the big act first, the watchers wander off. It is to be expected.

  80. A heretic speaks. by Dan541 · · Score: 1

    Well I'm using Vista.

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  81. Give me an undoctored live feed ANY day by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    I've given up trying to watch the olympics since the last few I watched chunks of were so heavily edited, and so horribly over commentated as to really ruin them.

    Basically ou got the highlights and the bloopers, with commentary that would make Bob Sagat proud.

    With 500 channels of cable/satellite it is a major shame that we can't have a dozen channels with nothing but live feed of virtually every venue in real time, with a 100% unedited repeat until the next day fires up. Instead I get a dozen channels of Law & Order reruns (Law & Order, Spedcial Ed. Unit).

  82. Prez Bush was bored by CleverDan · · Score: 1

    Maybe they wanted to edit out 'W' looking at his watch. Notice how Mrs. Bush always looked poised and well composed? Makes me wonder what the last eight years would have been like if she had been president...

  83. Where some countries skipped completely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry about the anonymous post but I had to mention that some countries might not have been called at all thanks to NBC's editing. I waited through it but Mexico never walked even though there were random bits of Mexican music in the background which suggest that they were somewhere behind the countries being called but they never came and the music kept stopping and then coming again.

  84. OH MY GOD, NO!!!! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Textbook definition of "slow news day."

  85. live from japan by dutchtommy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i watched it live in japan-on NHK.
    china was last, the USA somewhere near the middle/end.

    i imagine that the entire show was edited...especially the CHEERS that the USA recieved when taking the field. (btw, north korea got cheered too!) the Australians and the British were also recieved well.

    awesome show!

  86. NBC==SHIT. by solitas · · Score: 1

    They'd never show the opening ceremonies live - those three 4$$h0l3$ reading the commentary can't possibly THINK fast enough to do it live, they had to voice-over the production to get parts of it right, you could see/hear the slight difference even on videotape.

    Crowd noises were inconsistent, quality was crappy, editing was out of sequence - a blind, hydrocephalic, legless, autistic dead man with iMovie could've done a better job.

    After all the criticism of previous olympic shows for exactly the same tape-delaying you'd think they'd AT LEAST run the opening/closing ceremonies on-time.

    The earliest olympics I was old enough to appreciate was Tokyo in '64 and even though the satellite-relayed pictures were grainy and noisy I can remember thinking "gee, this is happening on the other side of the world RIGHT NOW..." and it was awesome to realize that even though it was an event a half-a-world away from me I could see it (essentially) immediately. The world stopped seeming unimaginably large right at that moment.

    Too bad "Nothing But Crap" can't see their way clear to keep even THAT four hours of the games live (well, AND the closing ceremonies) - the rest of the games don't matter as much, but there's somethng special about seeing the opening/closing live from the other side of the planet.
    (/soppy_romanticism)

    --
    "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
  87. It was not live by Toddlerbob · · Score: 1

    Was this true only online, or also in the live broadcast?"

    I don't care about the order of the athletes so much as the fact that they didn't broadcast it live at all. I had hoped to have watched it at the same time as my friends in Beijing, but was unable to do this. As far as I know, the USA is the only country who failed to broadcast the opening when it really happened. (some, like Canada, broadcast it twice - in real time and later a repeat in the evening.)

    In the old days (don't call me geezer!) they did lots of live broadcasting, and, while it was a strain to get up in the middle of the night to see it, there's something about that experience that brings home a real sense of the world, and how big it is. In this case, there's a sense of wonder to the idea that you're watching something at the same time as people all around the world. NBC, unsurprisingly but no less disgustingly, prefers profit over human fellowship.

    Of course, if you disagree with my point of view, that's no problem - you can just record it if it's broadcast live in the middle of the night.

    What's even more frustrating is that I was unable to find an unblocked stream in another country so I could watch it on my computer. I found out later that some German stations hadn't blocked it. There was an article in the New York times today how NBC kept playing internet "whack a mole" with those who knew how to find a way around their blocking. Well, so much for the idea that the Internet is free. Kind of feels like the West must have felt when they fenced it all in.

    actually I'm going to China soon, and I was going to start studying methods of circumventing China's great firewall. I wish I'd started already. Maybe I could (ironically) have used those methods to circumvent the great NBC firewall and watched the feeds from China or Canada.

  88. Opening Ceremony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I watched the Opening Ceremony broadcast and it was amazing. I went back to show my sister some of the highlights (she was asleep) and I couldn't find the drums that did the count down on the NBC site. I finally found it at the end of the Opening Ceremony video clip. That was the last place I was looking for it. Sounds like the order of the parade is not alone in this situation.

  89. Go Olympics! One World! One Dream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think that's the biggest issue, Did anyone notice that kid next to Yao Ming was given a upside down flag? And they kept showing the kid.

  90. The NBC time machine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would assume that it was only in the online broadcast if the event was shown live.... but if NBC had stock footage of the future, I would be intrigued to see how many golds Canada wins right now

  91. Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could show events, and people getting different scores. OMG AMERICANS GET PERFECT 10s! (Or whatever number scheme they have this time around, I think it can go up to 20 now... Even Spinal Tap didn't think about THAT!)

    Its like the debates... if NBC broadcast them, could (would) they mish mash the talks, have OBama reply correctly/accurately to one question, than have McCain answer a question from a half-hour ago about education? etc etc?
    Where do you draw the line?

    I always thought the broadcast of the Olympics would be like a documentary, putting down on video exactly what happens, then broadcasting it. I haven't watched so I don't know if they have commercial breaks, but Sports games do.
    They don't show the 1st quarter, the 3rd, the 4th, then the 2nd. That's ludicrous. Its stupid. And its a lie.

    Maybe I Should just switch to Fox News. :p

  92. The Olympics? Didn't they cancel that? by symbolset · · Score: 1

    I heard the 2008 Olympics were not held. John Titor told me so. Maybe that was an alternate timeline. Divergence is a bitch.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  93. Oh, like this hasn't happened before by zullnero · · Score: 1

    A network editing its content to "improve reality"? Incredible!

    Well, there WAS that whole thing with that Katie Couric interview with John McCain where they basically realized McCain was rambling in an answer, so they cut and pasted another one of his answers over that one to make him sound more coherant...but nah. No way!

    ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX...you wonder if the people running the show at any of those stations ever read 1984. You wonder if they ever creep themselves out with some of the stuff they pull to improve ratings. News shows ARE the new sitcoms. They know that sitcoms get more viewers than the news, so they've made the news like sitcoms or staged "reality" shows. It's not about the truth, it's about the money, buddy.

    1. Re:Oh, like this hasn't happened before by Peyna · · Score: 1

      You realize almost every news program does this, especially on the radio? NPR did an entire segment once explaining how they edit interviews to improve the flow and so that everyone doesn't sound like a bumbling idiot. You never notice it when they air the interviews because they tend to give the appearance that they are "live."

      As long as the idea conveyed by the individual is unaltered, I don't have a problem with the media "improving reality."

      --
      What?
  94. I don't know which is WORSE... this story or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Australian commercial network (was it 7?),
    that:

    - agreed to air a -controversial- sponsored ad
        - both BEFORE and AFTER the opening ceremony -
        (here in Australia),

    - but NEVER ran the ad at all!!!

    (The ad focused on human rights abuses in China...

    Did I mention that our Prime Minister - Rudd, who speaks Chinese - was at the opening ceremony? ...and is a BIG supporter of China, I understand.)

    I think the offending TV network -claimed- the opening ceremony ran longer than expected... hence the cuts.

    (So, how does that explain why the ad wasn't run BEFORE the ceremony?!?)

  95. Re:who got sick of the constant zooming on each sc by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    I know what you mean, the part with the red drumsticks was terrible camera work. However I don't think it was NBC, I think it was the same pool cameras that I watched here in Oz.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  96. No, they didn't! by Lachlan+Hunt · · Score: 1

    The first time I watched this, I couldn't figure out what order they were coming out in. I was watching it in a foreign stream with Chinese commentary and then it was later switched to Norwegian, cause I had no English stream available to me in Norway, where I am currently living.

    But I later downloaded copies of the broadcast from NBC and Australia's 7 network, and briefly compared bits of them. They seemed to be roughly the same, except for different camera angles. I checked the countries too, and in all 4 streams that I saw, they did all come out in the same order.

    But I can't believe they put ad breaks in the NBC broadcast! Channel 7 broadcast the whole thing completely free of ads, like they always do. Although, it was broadcast live in Australia. Also, I found the Australian commentators better (though I'm a little bias, since I am Australian)

    --
    By reading this signature, you hereby agree with the content of the above comment.
  97. The news entertainment industry modifies reality? by wbaxter1 · · Score: 1

    Unbelievable, I can't believe that the news entertainment industry would change reality to suit their purpose. That would be like a politician leaving out key points of information that might alter the size of their support group.

  98. The entire Olympic exercise is one of intimidation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess that's why they formed an image of a dove...

  99. To be fair... by fiendie · · Score: 1

    ...I think a lot of the precision and discipline are inherently Asian values. If Japan were to host the Olympic games we would see at least an opening ceremony in the same ballpark. As for the rest, I'd have to agree. That's the "advantage" of a centralized, authoritarian government.

  100. It is online... by BadgersAbout · · Score: 1

    ...on the BBC web site. So all you have to do is move to the UK and buy a TV license then you're set to watch it again on the BBC iPlayer. The online viewing works in FireFox using Flash so I'd guess it'd work on a Linux box too?

  101. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parents interpretation is a reflection of himself. It is not the Chinese that "scare the fuck" out of me. (I wonder if I correctly guess that the parent is an American?)

    In my opinion, China views the "entire Olympic exercise" as a demonstration that they are as capable as any "Western, First World" nation and are deserving of treatment as an equal by the rest of the world. Reasonable people call it "National Pride" - that you find it intimidating speaks volumes about your own preconceptions.

    You seem impressed with what the Chinese have done with their capital over the past 6 years; shall we discuss what America (and allies) has done with Iraq's capital over the past (almost) 6 years? "If not bound by troublesome concepts like fairness, freedom, and morality, you can achieve great things." - Indeed.

  102. Nothing was changed! Quit your whining! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't alter the order at all when it was broadcast "live."

    The bottom of the screen had a running lineup telling you which countries were up next, and it perfectly coincided with what was listed on Wikipedia.

    Anyone that thinks it was out of order either wasn't paying attention, or is simply looking for an excuse to bitch about NBC requiring Silverlight instead of making an exception for the 1% of linux-only users and going with Flash.

  103. Re:Did anyone else see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A cool president would just sit there looking all clam

    Scientology supporter, huh?

  104. Fake Stadium Extra's by fozzmeister · · Score: 1

    Anybody seen those huge mechanized billboards on NASCAR (or the French F1 race) used to advertise the network. They aint there either.

  105. YOU mean MSNBC - a partnership exists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you think the MSNBC got it's name. A partnership exists as matter of fact. I wonder if the folks looking into anti-trust have looked at this "silverlight" move by Microsoft yet (as an anti-competition weapon against open source and LINUX).

  106. In Costa Rica it was LIVE without Commericals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had the true pleasue of watching opening ceremonies live, unedited, without commerical interpertution on Broadcast TV in Costa Rica.
        I know NBC has paid a fortune for the rights and has to recope the $, but how are the overseas broadcasters making money without showing commercials.
       

  107. It was the correct order by retroworks · · Score: 1

    In a parallel universe... or, given an infinite amount of time, the NBC broadcast will eventually arrive at a place where the marching order is correct. So, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

    --
    Gently reply
  108. The purpose of television is to SELL ADVERTIZING by Adam8g · · Score: 1

    Not to record history Not to broadcast 'truth' Not to present 'facts' THEY SELL ADVERTIZING Btw - that goes for 'News' papers, magazines, radio, billboards....

  109. The Chines altered the order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NBC explained several times why the order was so mixed up. The Chinese ordered the country by the number of stokes used to write the countries name in Chinese because the Chinese do not have an alphabet like ours.

  110. What Olympics? by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    I didn't realize they were even on, until I saw something on the news website Saturday afternoon. I don't bother with crap like the Olympics...most of the (so called) athletes are doped up on something for the "extra" edge anyway.

  111. Newsflash, NBC alters LIVE events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> Is NBC altering the reality of the broadcast to boost ratings? Was this true only online, or also in the live broadcast?

    Yes, they altered the order during the live broadcast too.

    What with the time machine they have, they can do that, live.

    Is subby retarded?

  112. Re:Did anyone else see by The+Zen+Cow+Says+Mu · · Score: 2, Funny

    You've got to cut the guy some slack: (1) It was unbelievably hot and uncomfortable in the stadium (2) The parade of nations is unnecessarily long and boring (heck, I tivo'd it and watched it sped up and it still took an hour) (3) President Bush can't look at a watch discreetly -- it takes time to figure out which is the hour hand and which does the minutes, and Mickey's so gosh-darn cute you can't help but stare

  113. NBC censored the Chinese national anthem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in the Denver area[1] , the audio on the broadcast cut out *exactly* when the Chinese national anthem started; seems very convenient to me.

    Now, it did stay cut out for a ton of time afterward, including across an ad break, so maybe I'm being a little conspiratorial, but...

    [1] Fort Collins, via Comcast cable.

  114. Bush yawning by fafaforza · · Score: 1

    If NBC was doing that much editing, why would they NOT cut out the one (maybe more?) shot of Bush yawning and looking at his watch?

    Surely its much better for them to show everyone being completely interested, involved and smiling at the event?

  115. who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean really. This is a sporting event. Its not news, its entertainment. To be quite honest, had they shortened the whole thing to show the US enter the arena, then moved right onto the entertainment, I'd have been happier. And its not because I'm so US centric. If I were from Canada, I'd probably only care about the Canadians, but I happen to be from the US. I want to see who I will be rooting for and what they look like. I don't give a damn what the South Koreans are wearing, I really don't And not knowing does not make me less informed of world events. I read my news from the BBC to find out what's going on in the world (not because I think they are unbiased, but because they do a better job of carrying non US news, which accounts for most news). I also read my local newspaper's website for local and US news. When I watch television, its for entertainment, and for that I wanted to the the US and the festivities that followed the parade. Had I thought about it and TiVOed it, I would probably have fast forwarded and watched just those portions later. I mean come one, what's entertaining about the parade, unless you tell me that the Swedish womens beach volleyball team paraded in in the nude, its not that entertaining, and even then, there are better pictures on the web.

    Get a life people.

  116. Faked footage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
  117. Order can be important... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Changing the order of things may seem like a trivial change but unless it is explained that this has been done it may give the impression of a very different series of events. Just ask the BBC.

  118. selfishness at the olympics? by ernie+le+baron · · Score: 1

    i was keenly watching the finals of the women's 4 x 100 meter relay. at the very start i noticed something wrong. lead-off U.S. swimmer natalie coughlin hit the pool first and had a half body length over everyone else at the 50 meter mark yet somehow was overtaken by the australian and the dutch on the way back. the 2nd leg U.S. swimmer was even slower. dara torres for all her vaunted strength could never have overtaken the dutch and the australian with the lead they had on the final leg. now natalie coughlin is a world record holder. for her to be overtaken in a relay, particularly in the lead-off, is very suspicious. if she had just kept her lead, the U.S. could probably have won the gold. did she intentionally hold back so as to conserve her strength for her individual events? if she goes on to win these in record times i'd say she really did ease off in the 4 x 100 team relay.

  119. censorship is commercially advocated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They do that lame stuff with every other form of media. What do you think "uncut/unedited" movies are? What about them resold "bonus features"? Have you played any games lately? Seriously I either wait until movies come out on dvd to watch them or watch them subtitled from other countries, and as far as games go I fully advocate third party patching (you know the developers woulda made those scenes official if they could). What about bleeped music? You know some places their only choice to get quality unedited material is to pirate it? Like when 9/11 hit I was like OMG its finally come we all gonna go shoot some esrb mofos and free the radio waves for some high quality tunes, the age of intellectual oppression is over! But nah then I found it just some pissy islamic guys or something. You all make me sick, damn sheep. This story is so weak....

  120. Score;6, Informative by AlpineR · · Score: 1

    A reasoned explanation for what TV viewers saw, what Internet viewers saw, and a mechanism by which the difference could arise from stupidity rather than malice. When a thread has 441 comments and one of those comments answers all that, sometimes you just need a Score:6, Informative.

  121. Commercial Frequeny Re:Bcast version not altered by AJ+Mexico · · Score: 1

    Now that we have that settled... I want to thank Coke and NBC for showing Sunday's Olympic Basketball match between China and USA with minimal commercials. Good job. Have a coke. The opening ceremony was another matter, however, which was disgracefully and disrespectfully chopped up with commercials every couple of minutes.

    --
    Computers obey me.
  122. The Truth - comparing CCTV & NBC's version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I compared the completed version provided by CCTV with the one from NBC, NBC only shown about 80% of the ceremony's performances, and that's already excluding the parade of nation. The performance they edited out includes Chinese Opera and Chinese tradition puppet show. There you go from the network of peacock!

  123. And now they faked the fireworks too by BanjoBob · · Score: 1
    --
    Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
  124. When I was young by NetNinja · · Score: 1

    When I was younger I remember watching the Olympics on every major channel and you tunned into the sport that seemed interesting to you to watch. I remember getting so mad that I could not watch my regularly scheduled programs due to the Olympics. They broacasted day and night non stop.
    How I wish those days were back, now I am forced to watch what the dirt bag network (singular we bought the exclusive broadcast rights) deem to be highly watched programs.

    The Olympics are so much more clouded with politics and so much corporate manipulation that it ozzes of pure shit.

    They cry because nobody is watching them, I wonder why.

    I want to see the sports that I dont normaly see televised. I want to see other countries althetic best. I want to hear other countries nathional anthems being played.
    I want to travel the world from the comfort of my living room.

  125. Reason to boycott London 2012 by StrahdVZ · · Score: 1

    In Surveillance UK, Olympic events watch you.

  126. I've noticed this before.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a lot of the programmes that NBC broadcasts in the states..

    Some call it creative editing.., but the so called "live" shows that I've noticed it in also make me wonder.

    The thing that really scares me about it is most of the others that I'm watching with don't blink an eye to it. But it leaves me feeling unsettled and like something is amiss every time I noticed it.

    It's near the point where I don't bother watching anything anymore, but it drives me crazy!

  127. correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is "Memento".

  128. The answer to by danwesnor · · Score: 1

    Is NBC altering the reality of the broadcast to boost ratings?

    Your question is easily answered by looking up "television" in the dictionary.

  129. Re:The purpose of television is to SELL ADVERTIZIN by DanJ_UK · · Score: 1

    This is one of the reasons I agree with the TV license and am thankful for the BBC's services in the UK.

    --
    - Dan
  130. BBC rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is why i love the BBC, watch it live no adverts and then later you can download it on to your computer and watch it again, skipping past the boring bits. (the endless parade)

  131. So, Nobody here is bothered by the fact...? by smitth1276 · · Score: 1

    ...it doesn't bother any of you that this is an entirely inaccurate claim? The order wasn't changed at all, and whoever alleged that it was is smoking crack.

  132. so like by KingBenny · · Score: 0

    who cares about that ?? really ?

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?