Wednesday, 30 January 2013

How about that local sports team?

The braintrust behind Ottawa's new CFL team has narrowed the list of possible names down to five. They are:

The Ottawa RedBlacks
The Ottawa Voyageurs
The Ottawa Raftsmen
The Ottawa Nationals
The Ottawa Rush

I'd be lying if I said any of these excites me in the least. But, in one of those rare occurrences, this opinion seems to be that of the majority.

I understand the rationale behind "RedBlacks" - other Ottawa teams like the 67s (owned by the same braintrust referenced above) and the Sens both wear red and black. But there's no such "thing" as a RedBlack, and the word itself is clumsy to say, what with all those consonants crammed into each other in the middle there.

Ottawa "Red and Black," maybe, like the "Rouge et Or" of Université Laval.

I've never bought into the singular approach, either, so unless the owners promise to play "Tom Sawyer" at every kickoff I'd have to say that one's out, too.



Plus, getting the rights to play Tom Sawyer that often could get expensive.

After all, ten bucks is ten bucks.

I thought maybe the "Log Drivers" would be a good choice. It's local, and has its own halftime song:



Clay is nothing if not helpful, so with all of the above in mind, I'd like to present my suggestions that capture what I think is the essence of our national capital vibe.

Presenting, for your consideration, the CFL's newest franchise....

The Ottawa Landsdowners
The Ottawa Boondogglers
The Ottawa Compromisers
The Ottawa Fartcatchers
The Ottawa Nimbys
The Ottawa Royal Commissions (RC's for short)
The Ottawa SouthSide Suckers

Any of these tempt you?

By the way, I own copyright on all of them.    

Thursday, 24 January 2013

Stuff happens when you do stuff

Not only do views to your blog go up (hello, double digits!), but you also generate a lot more activity on your photo existence, too, it seems. I had given up the site 500px for a few months because thought the pix were just too pretty, too polished, too perfect.

I still think that sometimes, but there's no denying the quality of the contributions there and I can learn a lot from what I see. So, I've been busy marking several shots "favorites" and sharing some of them on Facebook as well.

This has, as of late, provoked a surprising uptick in activity on my own page. Comments, likes and favorites have come my way as well. Instagram, too.



Which is nice. My mission with these pictures, as you can read in my profile, is to improve everyday aesthetics. Sometimes I get down on myself for taking "easy" pictures of subjects that don't move. And the last thing the world needs is another pretty picture of something that doesn't move. 

Still, I am trying to get better at shooting people and I have no yen to do the kind of work that my friend Tony does, though I do admire the guy's approach.

So. 


Thanks.

Thursday, 17 January 2013

This will all be done by computers

Two videos found on the same day on the same topic. Namely, the use of technology - specifically, machinery - to create objects. The first is a 60 Minutes segment featuring Andrew McAfee and Erik Bynjolfsson called "March of the Machines." It aired last week.


The second is an archival documentary from Encyclopedia Britannica illustrating how a manuscript becomes a book. I found it on The Atlantic's site under the headline "Technology Porn for Book Lovers: A 1940s Guide to Printing."



The same subject (roughly), looked at twice in a 70-year interval. What are we to make of these? I can think of a few things.

UPDATE

To wit: from cnet today: "The Noodlebot takes on China's noodle chefs"