Author Topic: Olympic Gold Medals a Whopping 1.34% Gold (Read 20791 times)

Renegade · « **on:** July 29, 2012, 11:34 AM »

You'd think that with the massive amount spent on security and missile systems, they'd be able to afford to actually make the Olympic gold medals, well, umm... gold. 1.34% gold just seems a tad, umm... cheap.

http://www.prisonpla...tains-1-34-gold.html

As every Olympic athlete knows, size matters. The London 2012 medals are the largest ever in terms of both weight and diameter – almost double the medals from Beijing. However, just as equally well-known is that quality beats quantity and that is where the current global austerity, coin-clipping, devaluation-fest begins. The 2012 gold is 92.5 percent silver, 6.16 copper and… 1.34 percent gold, with IOC rules specifying that it must contain 550 grams of high-quality silver and a whopping 6 grams of gold. The resulting medallion is worth about $500. For the silver medal, the gold is replaced with more copper, for a $260 bill of materials. The bronze medal is 97 percent copper, 2.5 percent zinc and 0.5 percent tin. Valued at about $3, you might be able to trade one for a bag of chips in Olympic park if you skip the fish.

I suppose that the winners will have to endorse Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Nike, and the like in order to get their payday.

40hz · « **Reply #1 on:** July 29, 2012, 12:01 PM »

Not to take anything away from the athletes themselves, but when it comes to the modern Olympics and the IOC, there's considerably less there that's noble than meets the eye. I'd suggest the composition of the winners' medals rather nicely symbolizes that. Much like Douglas Adams' Milliways (i.e. The Restaurant at the End of the Universe) which he characterized as a place "where little expense was spared to create the impression that no expense was spared."

SeraphimLabs · « **Reply #2 on:** July 29, 2012, 12:13 PM »

I'm more alarmed by the strictness of copyright enforcement over the 2012 games.

Was always under the impression that the Olympics were supposed to be a global event to promote peace and prosperity, as well as some good clean sporting fun.

But this? I can't even enjoy them because I can't get cable TV here, and nobody on the internet has succeeded in uploading more than a few seconds worth of opening ceremony clips without attracting the copyright banhammer.

nosh · « **Reply #3 on:** July 29, 2012, 12:24 PM »

Meanwhile, someone trolled the Indian contingent.

I'm more embarrassed about the official who claims she "hogged the limelight" and needs an apology.

Also, TMZ decided to be subtle about things...

Spoiler

MilesAhead · « **Reply #4 on:** July 29, 2012, 02:20 PM »

Hmm, I kind of lost interest after watching the Olympics in China. Not only did they abandon a perfectly fine scoring system for gymnastics(perfectly fine meaning a person could understand it without consulting a professional) but the position of judge for the Women's Gymnastics became a "no show job." Nearly every contest was determined by falls off the beam or uneven bars, and stepping out of bounds on the floor exercise. IOW, the judges were taken out of the equation. Didn't matter if they took a tenth off for this balance bauble and not for that. The mandatory 5 tenths deductions for falls and step-outs determined the results.

Instead of trying to calculate levels of difficulty and some jazz about a possible max scroe of 15.77588991112 I just counted the falls for each team. The team with the fewest falls won.

Kind of reminded me of watching World Team Tennis. There's more time and effort involved introducing the players and playing hyped up music than in the actual tennis played. No-ad scoring and some retarded scheme where number of games won(real tennis is all about winning sets) may determine the winner. I can understand retired players and up and comers may need a cash cow. But I sure as hell don't want to waste my time watching that crap.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #5 on:** July 29, 2012, 04:08 PM »

Hmm, I kind of lost interest after watching the Olympics in China. Not only did they abandon a perfectly fine scoring system for gymnastics(perfectly fine meaning a person could understand it without consulting a professional) but the position of judge for the Women's Gymnastics became a "no show job." Nearly every contest was determined by falls off the beam or uneven bars, and stepping out of bounds on the floor exercise. IOW, the judges were taken out of the equation. Didn't matter if they took a tenth off for this balance bauble and not for that. The mandatory 5 tenths deductions for falls and step-outs determined the results.

Instead of trying to calculate levels of difficulty and some jazz about a possible max score of 15.77588991112 I just counted the falls for each team. The team with the fewest falls won.
-MilesAhead (July 29, 2012, 02:20 PM)

Doesn't this threaten the entire concept of the __________ (Copyright Unmentionable) games themselves by encouraging Lowballing? Just pick a safe routine with fewer risks, because you can't afford a fall.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #6 on:** July 29, 2012, 04:13 PM »

I'm more alarmed by the strictness of copyright enforcement over the 2012 games.

Was always under the impression that the Olympics were supposed to be a global event to promote peace and prosperity, as well as some good clean sporting fun.

But this? I can't even enjoy them because I can't get cable TV here, and nobody on the internet has succeeded in uploading more than a few seconds worth of opening ceremony clips without attracting the copyright banhammer.

-SeraphimLabs (July 29, 2012, 12:13 PM)

My thought on the medals is that much pure gold was vetoed because it would become instant ebay-bait, making the purpose of winning to sell off your medal, rather than the traditional nebulous glory.

Meanwhile with the whole copyright thing, that's also bitter because I think there were rules that the athletes themselves were not supposed to be "paid professionals" aka "doing it out of love for the sport", yet now we have the committee making a blatantly commercial grab.

Hehe we're software guys, what if someone forked the Olympics and made it GPL (or whatever license applies to physical motion!)

MilesAhead · « **Reply #7 on:** July 29, 2012, 04:27 PM »

Doesn't this threaten the entire concept of the __________ (Copyright Unmentionable) games themselves by encouraging Lowballing? Just pick a safe routine with fewer risks, because you can't afford a fall.
-TaoPhoenix (July 29, 2012, 04:08 PM)

Supposedly that was part of the reason for getting rid of the 10 point system. Nadia Comăneci hit everything with no errors and stuck the landings. She racked up a bunch of 10s. Comes full circle except now while watching we have no clue which score is a "good" score for which exercise. The TV network has to put a graphic of a steaming turd so we know the gymnast stunk up the place.

I watched some of the selection competitions. Some of the gymnasts who flopped to the floor from uneven bars should have opted for a body slam by one of the WWE dudes instead. Easier on the chin.

jgpaiva · « **Reply #8 on:** July 29, 2012, 04:54 PM »

Well, if I was an athlete and someone asked me if I'd prefer a 100% gold medal which I would never sell + no money; or a 1%gold medal + a large sum in money, I'd go for the latter every day of the week. Medals are symbolic, it's a good thing they are not gold: I don't think they are the kind of thing that should be ever sold.

Also, Phelp's house would be robbed day-in-day-out if his 17 medals were 100% gold (the alternative would be that he wouldn't be able to look at them every day unless he went to the bank

).

MilesAhead · « **Reply #9 on:** July 29, 2012, 05:17 PM »

@jgpaiva but aren't the medals more valuable as collectibles than for melting down? Stolen Superbowl rings likely go for more as-is on the black market rather then melted down for the metal.

OTOH if they had some intrinsic value maybe Jim Thorpe would have melted his and told the committee he "lost 'em."

jgpaiva · « **Reply #10 on:** July 29, 2012, 05:37 PM »

@jgpaiva but aren't the medals more valuable as collectibles than for melting down? Stolen Superbowl rings likely go for more as-is on the black market rather then melted down for the metal.
-MilesAhead (July 29, 2012, 05:17 PM)

I agree, but now imagine how much they'd be worth if they were in fact true gold!

MilesAhead · « **Reply #11 on:** July 29, 2012, 07:05 PM »

@jgpaiva but aren't the medals more valuable as collectibles than for melting down? Stolen Superbowl rings likely go for more as-is on the black market rather then melted down for the metal.
-MilesAhead (July 29, 2012, 05:17 PM)
I agree, but now imagine how much they'd be worth if they were in fact true gold!
-jgpaiva (July 29, 2012, 05:37 PM)

Also when I posted I didn't think of smaller events. A 24k statue for a local foot race might go missing even if the thief never heard of the event.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2012, 06:46 AM »

So the contestants are given trinkets for theirown "safety" ... Yeah, there's some badly spin doctored bullshit. Kids spend the entirety of their young lives training for a shot and end up (basically) getting a stick of gum for their efforts - Yeah, Yeah, Yeah...endorsement deals are great if they want to spend even more time towing the corporate image line. But that doesn't really reward their efforts ... It just gives them a "golden" opportunity to be a shill. Hay...maybe if they were paid shit for that also, they couldn't afford to get into so much trouble ... That'd be a win/win ... Not!

jgpaiva · « **Reply #13 on:** July 30, 2012, 09:27 AM »

So the contestants are given trinkets for theirown "safety" ...
-Stoic Joker (July 30, 2012, 06:46 AM)

Well, that's my conjecture, don't know if there's any truth behind it

Personally, if I got an olympics medal, I would never sell it regardless of its value, so I'd actually prefer getting a cheaper medal and some money, since the medal is just sentimental.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #14 on:** July 30, 2012, 12:16 PM »

So the contestants are given trinkets for theirown "safety" ...
-Stoic Joker (July 30, 2012, 06:46 AM)
Well, that's my conjecture, don't know if there's any truth behind it
Personally, if I got an olympics medal, I would never sell it regardless of its value, so I'd actually prefer getting a cheaper medal and some money, since the medal is just sentimental.
-jgpaiva (July 30, 2012, 09:27 AM)

Understood, but it fit nicely with my dim view of corporate attitudes.

jgpaiva · « **Reply #15 on:** July 30, 2012, 12:35 PM »

...
-jgpaiva (July 30, 2012, 09:27 AM)
Understood, but it fit nicely with my dim view of corporate attitudes.
-Stoic Joker (July 30, 2012, 12:16 PM)

OK, carry on, then

MilesAhead · « **Reply #16 on:** July 30, 2012, 02:42 PM »

Fame is one of those things that's in the mind of the beholder. It may let you cut the line at a restaurant(or even get a free meal) if the owner is a fan. But if you watch the video when they tout the Tennis Hall of Fame
during the last grass court tournament of the season, played at that site.. a guy walks in with a hand-held video-cam. You see a few pictures on the wall. A couple of trophy cases. And maybe 2 laptop computers showing video of old matches. I think I'd pay $5 to be spared taking that tour.

During one of the broadcasts of the Newport Tournament I remember Barry MacKay talking about how in the old days the tennis pros were paid so little he had to sleep in the attic of the museum, to the director of the tournament who came on air for a bit. The director replied to the effect "the attic is still available if you need it Barry."

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #17 on:** July 30, 2012, 04:05 PM »

Fame is one of those things that's in the mind of the beholder. It may let you cut the line at a restaurant(or even get a free meal) if the owner is a fan. But if you watch the video when they tout the Tennis Hall of Fame
during the last grass court tournament of the season, played at that site.. a guy walks in with a hand-held video-cam. You see a few pictures on the wall. A couple of trophy cases. And maybe 2 laptop computers showing video of old matches. I think I'd pay $5 to be spared taking that tour.

During one of the broadcasts of the Newport Tournament I remember Barry MacKay talking about how in the old days the tennis pros were paid so little he had to sleep in the attic of the museum, to the director of the tournament who came on air for a bit. The director replied to the effect "the attic is still available if you need it Barry."

-MilesAhead (July 30, 2012, 02:42 PM)

I think the Internet devalued fame. Back when EVERYTHING was scarce, things were "celebrated". If a local town had a winner, he'd get free lunches at the diner for life because of the name draw. Now it's "bah, you had your free meal, now go home".

It's the end of the speed-culture effect. Nothing at all matters for more than a year.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #18 on:** July 30, 2012, 04:39 PM »

I think the Internet devalued fame. Back when EVERYTHING was scarce, things were "celebrated"
-TaoPhoenix

It may have accelerated an existing trend. The internet wasn't in full swing when Andy Warhol noted that everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. The movie was horrid but I enjoyed the novel Bonfire of the Vanities. Once the bond broker made the front page, even though he was accused of a crime, the people who totally ignored him in the past hung on his every word. The old "no such thing as bad publicity" bit.

The internet just lets some people who can't afford a PR firm do it themselves.

edit: the concept of being known for being famous is pretty weird if you think about it. When I was a kid growing up, the panelists on game shows were there for so many years I never knew what they did before to merit being on the show. Or... Betty White will never die because she's really an android.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #19 on:** July 31, 2012, 01:01 AM »

Nah, it's different now.

Andy Warhol was right, but more like in a futurist sense predicting now. Back then you really did get "some fame" (reference to Charlotte's Web). In small towns especially, the point was that overall events were slower, so small events really did last months. I have a running joke about those times, where some woman was a mini matriarch or something, "In a Post-Insult-To-Mrs. Whipple-World, Things Will Never Be The Same". (Play off the 9-11 meme from the US.)

In my own little reading world, the same books would be on some bookstore shelves *for years* because they were the iconic items to have stocked there. Now except certain sections, bookstores ditch their stock roughly every two years, so if you got busy, and wanted "that book", it's gone. It got so bad I had to pre-emptively buy stuff for my collection simply to keep it from vanishing off the shelf.

So it is different now, badly. Yes we have more Long Tail diversity, but in the Social Media age Fame (or Notoriety!) no longer brings money.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #20 on:** July 31, 2012, 01:18 AM »

Andy Warhol was right, but more like in a futurist sense predicting now.
-TaoPhoenix (July 31, 2012, 01:01 AM)

I think what he was getting at was TV would be enough to do the damage. Probably among the first to feel the pain was the stand-up comic. Going town to town playing clubs (s)he could earn a living for years from 45 minutes of decent material. One shot on Carson and it's over. Everyone has already seen the shtick.

Likely the people who make money off notoriety now are the people who had it to start with. Paris Hilton.. Laurence Fishburne's daughter.. tennis player Ashley Harkleroad.. she didn't stay in the top 20 very long, but she cashed in with the Playboy shoot etc..

Guess it still works for the privileged.. as one would expect.

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #21 on:** July 31, 2012, 01:26 AM »

Andy Warhol was right, but more like in a futurist sense predicting now.
-TaoPhoenix (July 31, 2012, 01:01 AM)

I think what he was getting at was TV would be enough to do the damage. Probably among the first to feel the pain was the stand-up comic. Going town to town playing clubs (s)he could earn a living for years from 45 minutes of decent material. One shot on Carson and it's over. Everyone has already seen the shtick.

-MilesAhead (July 31, 2012, 01:18 AM)

You're on the right track, but at least at that point people HAD seen the schtick, so he'd be famous for X minutes to write a new one.

What we have now is a giant case of "Who?" Kinda the whole US in our own little pockets and only a very few make it to be generally known across the net.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2012, 01:32 PM »

You're on the right track, but at least at that point people HAD seen the schtick, so he'd be famous for X minutes to write a new one.
-TaoPhoenix (July 31, 2012, 01:26 AM)

Only those who could afford to buy jokes survived. New jokes that work, that aren't stolen from other comics, can't be cranked out. Even if you look up funny sayings by "geniuses" like Woody Allen or Groucho Marx, it's unusual to find more than 5 or 6 "gems" in the pile. And that's after a whole career of insight. Guys like Carson who had to do it 5 nights a week had teams of writers that included guys like Dick Cavett. Some old ex Vaudeville guy going from town to town was known, but couldn't get any work, after being on Carson.

A lot of people complain about the "dirty routines" in comedy clubs. But when you think about it, it's job security. Your routine can't be shown on regular TV. Or if they show it with the bleeps, people will pay to see it done uncensored. If you do HBO or some venue where they can air it raw, then make sure you're paid enough to live on and buy new material besides.

40hz · « **Reply #23 on:** July 31, 2012, 05:07 PM »

A lot of people complain about the "dirty routines" in comedy clubs. But when you think about it, it's job security. Your routine can't be shown on regular TV. Or if they show it with the bleeps, people will pay to see it done uncensored.
-MilesAhead (July 31, 2012, 01:32 PM)

But couldn't most people just fill in the blanks anyway? Most of what gets bleeped out isn't hard to guess. Especially with most comics who have what my GF calls "a one-word vocabulary."

Note: one problem with shock comedy is the same "dirty blues" singers have when they bomb on stage. They're never sure if the audience didn't like their act because it was too dirty - or not dirty enough.

MilesAhead · « **Reply #24 on:** July 31, 2012, 05:26 PM »

But couldn't most people just fill in the blanks anyway? Most of what gets bleeped out isn't hard to guess. Especially with most comics who have what my GF calls "a one-word vocabulary."
-40hz (July 31, 2012, 05:07 PM)

You could say the same thing about R rated films. Some people will see them in the theater, some on pay movie channels or streaming on TV at home, and some will wait for them to be shown on basic cable. Yeah I can tell when the person uses the 'F' word on basic cable. But is my brain going to melt if I hear it without the bleep? Is it really protecting the innocent or just dividing the media into markets?