http://slyoyster.com

I don’t have cable and it’s not really a big deal because most networks stream their shows online or they’re on Hulu or in some cases I’ll (I guess illegally) download them in torrent form to watch.  I don’t miss the annoying commercials, the aimless channel surfing, 500 channels with nothing to watch, local news or even nightly national news.

But there are a few things I hate about not having cable, or television for that matter.  I hate not being able to watch timely programs like The Daily Show or Colbert, I hate that I’m always late to the internet watercooler when it comes to zeitgeist shows like Lost, Battlestar Galactica or Mad Men, but more than anything else I hate that I can’t watch sports.

When I want to watch the Red Sox I have to find a bar showing the game here in Portland, same with the Patriots on Sunday or when the Celtics when sweating it out in the playoffs last spring.

NBC has been putting their Sunday Night Football game online with five different camera angles.  I’ve watched it twice now for the Patriots, including last Sunday.  I like it, though if it streamed more smoothly I’d like it even more (seriously the test pattern and bleed your ears tone when the video was buffering?  Seriously that’s the best you can come up with?).

I like that you have access to the broadcast feed, with the commentators (TBS and MLB streamed the playoffs online with no sounds and this was not the future of online sports broadcasting), and that there are several other options to watch.  Among them are the endzone camera and the star camera, which follows a specific player for the duration of the game.

Slate agrees and loves the different angles.

An inventory of the camera angles: First is the high end-zone cam, which is essentially the same as the coaches’ film—formation junkies, this one’s for you. While you can’t see the receivers flanked wide or the corners who are covering them at the snap, the rest of the players are visible. If you want to know what the QB is seeing when he breaks the huddle—is the safety in the box? is a blitz coming? should I shift the play to the strong side to take advantage of the defensive personnel?—plan on spending some time with this angle. I viewed almost the entire first quarter of the first game I watched online (Steelers at Browns) from this vantage.

The low-angle sideline cam is akin to standing on the bench during the game—great for watching sweeps in the direction of the camera and for judging whether the ball carrier broke the plane of the end zone. Otherwise, it’s like getting a sideline pass without getting to stand next to all the players. You miss most of the action, and you don’t get any free Gatorade.

The “Star” cam isolates on one player from each team—or, in the case of the Tampa-Seattle game, five different players. Other “stars” have included Pittsburgh wide receiver Hines Ward and safety Troy Polamalu, Jacksonville QB David Gerrard, and Cleveland wideout Braylon Edwards. For quarterbacks, this feature is a bit redundant—the camera’s always on the guy with the ball—but it’s fantastic for the other positions. Watching Polamalu fly around the field at full speed on every play is fantastic, and not just because his jouncing hair is hypnotic. Few athletes play with Polamalu’s reckless abandon, and it’s thrilling to try to forecast collisions by watching him bounce around the iso cam.

The Star cam works even better for receivers. After watching Ward and Edwards for three straight hours, I now understand why so many wide receivers are narcissistic—their job is to run one wind sprint after another with only the occasional ball thrown their way to break up the track workout. Even Ward, by consensus the most team-first, blocking-happy wideout in the league (although we cognoscenti also know him as a dirty player), could be seen remonstrating angrily that he was open, breaking off routes halfheartedly, and, when teammate Nate Washington scored on a pass play against the Jaguars, cutting directly to the bench rather than joining his buddy for a little celebration. Mostly, he just ran, ran, ran.

The author of the piece doesn’t feel like this online experiment by NBC will replace actual broadcast anytime soon, and it never will.  Sports aren’t meant to be watched on a tiny 15 inch monitor, but at some point the internet is going to replace cable and when that happens the networks broadcasting sports better have a plan in place and NBC is ahead of their pack with the (mostly) successful Sunday Night Football experiment.

A few articles have surfaced that counter the NYT article about internet literacy amongst youths from Sunday.? The Washington Monthly tells us long-form non-fiction is needlessly overwritten.? In other words write less.? And, Digital Journal furthers the notion that literacy is changing.

I’m a firm believer that education, as it is currently conceived, doesn’t do enough to help students navigate the world of information.? Libraries and schools, as information nexus, haven’t been given the funding or opportunity to embrace the future or adequately prepare for it.

The internet has altered the way that people process information, find information, share information, and schools by still relying on books as their fundamental source for knowledge/information have failed to engage students in a way that the internet does.? It’s a losing battle until they change their mode of attack.

I guess, in many ways, this longish piece in the New York Times this morning looking at the internet and literacy has also failed.? It’s a 3,000 word (estimate only) look at how teenagers process information, which inevitably is dubbed “reading.”? They argue that kids no longer no how to read or even bother to do so because of the internet.? Oddly, the whole point of the article: that kids don’t read in a linear fashion anymore.

Ironically, I didn’t even read the entire piece, but skimmed through it looking for relevant parts, interesting points, etc.

Few who believe in the potential of the Web deny the value of books. But they argue that it is unrealistic to expect all children to read ?To Kill a Mockingbird? or ?Pride and Prejudice? for fun. And those who prefer staring at a television or mashing buttons on a game console, they say, can still benefit from reading on the Internet. In fact, some literacy experts say that online reading skills will help children fare better when they begin looking for digital-age jobs.

Some Web evangelists say children should be evaluated for their proficiency on the Internet just as they are tested on their print reading comprehension. Starting next year, some countries will participate in new international assessments of digital literacy, but the United States, for now, will not.

Clearly, reading in print and on the Internet are different. On paper, text has a predetermined beginning, middle and end, where readers focus for a sustained period on one author?s vision. On the Internet, readers skate through cyberspace at will and, in effect, compose their own beginnings, middles and ends.

Just because kids don’t read in a linear fashion anymore doesn’t mean that they can’t or won’t read.? It’s just that they’ve changed the way they want to access information.

So why would you republish the article in a newspapery linear fashion?? Wouldn’t it have been more bold of the NYT editors to repurpose the print article and illustrate their point by creating a multimedia extravaganza?

You know, regardless of credentials and experience and direction of the country and all the nonsense we get caught up with when voting, in this information age shouldn’t using the internet be important?? Shouldn’t using a computer and understanding how they fit into contemporary life be important.? Shouldn’t things like net neutrality, etc. be important for our next president?

It’s understandable that John McCain wouldn’t use a computer, but when he admitted he didn’t know how to use one, well, shit.? That’s just confounding.? My grandma uses a computer regularly to check email, surf the internet, play scrabble, etc.

She’s not alone:

How unusual is it for a 71-year-old American to be unplugged?

That depends how you look at the statistics. Only 35 percent of Americans over age 65 are online, according to data from April and May compiled by the Pew Internet Project at the Pew Research Center.

But when you account for factors like race, wealth and education, the picture changes dramatically. “About three-quarters of white, college-educated men age over 65 use the Internet,” says Susannah Fox, director of the project.

“John McCain is an outlier when you compare him to his peers,” Fox says. “On one hand, a U.S. senator has access to information sources and staff assistance that most people do not. On the other, the Internet has become such a go-to resource that it’s a curiosity to hear that someone doesn’t rely on it the way most Americans do.”

But the best part, and I’m not making this up, comes a bit further down in the article.? “”He’s fully capable of browsing the Internet and checking Web sites,” Brooke Buchanan, McCain’s spokewoman said. “He has a Mac and uses it several times a week. He’s working on becoming more familiar with the Internet.”

Ah, let’s get him a cookie and some milk and pat him on the head before putting him down for a nap.? You’re so cute, yes you are.? Yes you are.? You can check websites!

Actually, that’s about all I use the internet for.? Well, that and porn and stealing music so you know.? We have that in common.