Nike and Google launch Joga.com

Mes Ami slashdotter by Mantorp · 2006-03-20 03:51 · Score: 1, Offtopic

For too long, ve let liars and cheaters make a fool of ze site. Enough! I am ere to remind ze world zat zis site is about skills, heart, Honor, joy, team spirit. Mes amis I need your help, togetzer we can make it beeutiful again. Beeutiful! Watch zis space.

Oh, and check out the latest FIFA rankings, USA is ranked shockingly high!

Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by solarbob · 2006-03-20 04:22 · Score: 1

Well its a world cup year so I'm sure we can all sit down and get along

--
SolarVPS - Quality Windows and Linux Virtual Servers
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:29 · Score: 0

shut up
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by rogueuk · 2006-03-20 04:53 · Score: 0, Offtopic

With regard to the USA ranking, it helps that the USA has played 5 friendlies already this year since most of the team is in the MLS off-season while most other associations are in the middle of their league play so friendlies are much harder to coordinate.

I like that commercial with Cantona, but am I must admit I wonder if he was thinking of skills, heart, HHHHonor, joy, and team spirit when he drop kicked that fan during the Crystal Palace game in 95.
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by Conanymous+Award · 2006-03-20 05:17 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"...heart, Honor..."

Your French sucks, mon ami. The letter H is silent in spoken French, it practically doesn't exist. The French, if anybody, would pronounce honor without the H.

Oh, BTW: the word itself comes to English from French. ;P
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 05:21 · Score: 0

i take it you haven't seen the commercial with eric cantona speaking almost exactly what the gp wrote..and very much overpronouncing the H in honor
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by Mantorp · 2006-03-20 05:42 · Score: 1

yeah, he's a curious choice, but 95% of people seeing the commercial here won't recognize him anyway.
It's gonna be interesting to see how the US does against Germany this week. Anything but a Germany win and I think Klinsmann is gone. You can't lose twice right before hosting a World Cup. A win for the US would be a huge morale boost and a tiny revenge for losing the quarterfinal to them in the last world cup.
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by Mantorp · 2006-03-20 05:44 · Score: 1

My French does indeed suck, but not as bad as Cantona's English considering he lived in England for several years.
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by Conanymous+Award · 2006-03-20 05:51 · Score: 1

No I haven't. But Cantona probably thought the H would be pronounced in the word because in English it almost always is, so he was just being logical. Well, grammatical exceptions aren't that unfamiliar to English anyways... Or maybe they have an exception with "honneur" in French and the H is actually pronounced? Who knows. But thanks for informing me about the ad.
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by br0ck · 2006-03-20 06:17 · Score: 0, Offtopic

How is the text of the commercial used to launch Joga in a thread about Joga even slightly offtopic?
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by rogueuk · 2006-03-20 07:08 · Score: 1

I always like to see the Germans lose, but I'm not sure the US will be able to pull that off. I don't think they'll be able to thrash them like they did Norway and Guatamala.
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by Mantorp · 2006-03-20 07:12 · Score: 1

Many, if not most of the best US players won't make the game either so it could get ugly. On the other hand that would make a loss extra embarassing for the Germans.
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 08:59 · Score: 0

Because the baseball and 'football' loving american moderators think that discussion has to be either on Google or Nike, and nothing else. So what if the site is all about 'soccer'!!
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2006-03-20 10:56 · Score: 1

>I like that commercial with Cantona, but am I must admit I wonder if he was thinking of skills, heart, HHHHonor, joy, and team spirit when he drop kicked that fan during the Crystal Palace game in 95.
Nowhere near his first offense either. Definitely the poster boy for the catch phrase that soccer is, "a gentleman's game played by hooligans." Footballer of the century my ass!

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by Derkec · 2006-03-20 18:46 · Score: 1

It looks like there's a decent contingent of US players who will be able to make the trip (eveyrone in Germany for instance) - like the entire Kansas City squad. Interesting to see Hahnemman as the backup still. How's he doing out at Reading? Last I saw him he was an excellent MLS keeper, but that doesn't always translate to the international game.
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by Mantorp · 2006-03-21 02:06 · Score: 1

From what I've read he's been doing very well, I think he plays almost every game.
Re:Mes Ami slashdotter by br0ck · 2006-03-21 03:47 · Score: 1

Reading is only a few points off making it to the premier level, and Yanks Abroad has an article about how he and Bobby Convey have helped--especially Convey's goal last weekend.

Soccer is eXtreme!! by BadAnalogyGuy · 2006-03-20 03:54 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Yo! Check out tha brand new site JOGA, muthafuckaz! Peep Nike's ultracool lineup and vote for your favorite Air Jordan!

Yeah! Keep it real bruthaz!

Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Rude+Turnip · 2006-03-20 03:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

I haven't purchased a Nike product for well over a decade due to their use of sweatshops in Asia. It would seem to me that Google would be indirectly supporting Nike's disgusting business practices by providing the tech support in this venture.

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!

Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Lev13than · 2006-03-20 03:58 · Score: 5, Funny

I haven't purchased a Nike product for well over a decade due to their use of sweatshops in Asia.

Why is this a bad thing? If I'm going to buy a wicking running shirt, I'd like it to be made by someone who understands perspiration.

--
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Bonker · 2006-03-20 04:07 · Score: 0, Redundant

Mod parent up, please.

This is the first thing that crossed my mind when I heard 'Google and Nike'.

No, not everyone at Nike is evil, but the company has proven again and again that they will employ sweatshop labor and child labor. Those making decisions at the top of Nike are apparently making evil decisions.

The China thing is a good contrast here. Google has adequately supported their reasons for activity in China. They're up to providing the people with as much information as they can, and are working within government limits to do so.

In this case, Google is parterning with an 'Evil' company for mostly monetary benefit.

This some bad juju.

--
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by ceeam · 2006-03-20 04:07 · Score: 1

Yeah, if only Steve Ballmer went into making "wicking running shirts".
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by DrSkwid · 2006-03-20 04:15 · Score: 1, Funny

Google also releases software for Windows.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Tommac2005 · 2006-03-20 04:17 · Score: -1, Offtopic

PLEASE mod this guy up! XD

--
www.jiggedyjoo.com
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:32 · Score: 0

So we can all assume you go around naked. Since of course most if not every item of clothing is made overseas. Lets not forget we are in a global economy here, and not everything is made in the highly overpriced United States.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by include($dysmas) · 2006-03-20 04:42 · Score: 1

true, they are also supporting logically disgusting signing up practices :

"Currently Joga.com is invite only. Please leave us your name and email and we will send you a Joga invite shortly."

wait a minute?!
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Threni · 2006-03-20 04:43 · Score: 1

I'm sure Google aren't too obsessed with sweatshops in Indonesia eta, and are more than willing to help get Nike on track with some handy new Chinese ones...

Also, whilst we're on the subject of tedious `social-networking` sites, my favourite, by far, is this one:

www.isolatr.com
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Ucklak · 2006-03-20 04:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are sweatshop all over Asia and it's not Nike's fault. Nike is just like all other global corporations utilizing those resources that are available.
At least those people have jobs and can feed their families (although with the population problem over there, breeding is debatable).

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Pigeon451 · 2006-03-20 04:48 · Score: 1

What sort of shoes do you wear? Reebok? New Balance? Most of your garments are made in sweatshops. Check your labels. China, Pakistan, India, Taiwan, etc. Do you really think ALL companies follow strict regulations in these coutries?
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by FinestLittleSpace · 2006-03-20 04:55 · Score: 0, Redundant

Just because something is made overseas, it doesn't mean that it should be made in sweatshops, which Nike continues to use. There is such thing as an overseas, ethical, well maintained factory. The profit margins Nike makes on it's shirts through using cheap labour are sickening.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:58 · Score: 0

oh bitch, bitch, bitch.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by albalbo · 2006-03-20 05:00 · Score: 1

Wow.

So... you're in favour of slavery too? Or you would be, if it was still around and everyone had slaves? After all, if everyone has slaves, it's not your personal responsbility, right?

--
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by 91degrees · 2006-03-20 05:01 · Score: 1

They say "no Sweat". It's easy enough to get ethical clothing if you're willing to put the effort into finding it.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 05:07 · Score: 0

Whaaa whaaaa whaaaa. Time to become a realist in today's world economy. Sweat shops are here to stay!!
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Ucklak · 2006-03-20 05:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'm not in favor of slavery and those workers aren't slaves anymore than they are children of ambitious/needy parents that need money.
They are paid employees.

It is not Nike's fault those people are in the situation they are in. If they really feel oppressed, they should stand up to their oppressor and take over but they're not.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by FinestLittleSpace · 2006-03-20 05:15 · Score: 1

Are you utterly retarded? It would be perfectly possible for Nike to build and maintain their own factories in these countries where they enforce fair working rules and environments. But they don't.

It is Nike's responsibility as supposed human beings to prevent sweatshop attitudes.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by kermitthefrog917 · 2006-03-20 05:26 · Score: 1

Boycotting those sweatshops doesn't keep them from happening... It just means that each kid gets paid less, or less kids get paid. Yeah it's cruel, but whats the realistic alternative between unemployment and a sweatshop? Not even Google could invoke a revolution in which the minimum wage in these countries would rise 6 dollars to $6.01 an hour.
PS Don't check those numbers

--
I may be wrong but you're downright ugly!
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Ucklak · 2006-03-20 05:28 · Score: 1

Nike is not the cause for sweatshops or child labor.
It exists as a resource just like local water/coal supplies are nearby for power companies.
Because that resource exists, Nike can use it to manufacture their product and have a competitive product.

I don't think that Rockport, Keds, Reebok, Converse, BK, and cheepie no-name brand manufacture their shoes in an uptown skyscraper in Manhattan on the 53rd floor. Their shops are probably right down the street from the Nike factory or maybe even the 3rd shift in the Nike building since all the shoe making materials are right there. Probably close to a port somewhere so that shipping doesn't have to rely on bicycles breaking down to get the product to ship.

Nike doesn't have any special materials in their shoe that any other shoe manufacturer has.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 05:28 · Score: 0

Well if you look closely at your sources you will see that the same factories Nike uses, Adidas, Reebox, New Balance, and Puma use those same contracted factories. Anyways if you look at the current reports there currently are no called "sweatshops" the Global Alliance does reports and random spot checks all the time. Conditions aren't matched to those you see in the U.S. (wait there are factories here?) the conditions have greatly improved for workers then say 20 years ago. Which makes me believe you must be going off 20 year old data.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 05:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

have you ever been to factories in Asia -- or maybe New York or LA? How about the midwest?
I've been in all, and i will say that Nike factories (which are all third party owned/operated) are by and large clean and well-run -- with multiple 3rd party auditors verifying that health codes are met/ wages are paid per local laws, etc.
(i've seen factories in LA that make some of the "sweatshops" in Asia look like clean rooms.)

by the way, most apparel factories that produce Nike apparel have about 5-10% of their business with Nike. 90% of their revenues come from all sorts of other brands - reebok, tommy h, adidas, van heusen, polo, and any other brand you can think of?
by the way, have you ever given thought to where your silverware, plates, household furniture, etc. come from? virtually none of these types of factories are audited by anyone.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by albalbo · 2006-03-20 05:34 · Score: 1

Of course Nike is the cause. Every single company using sweatshops and every single consumer that purchases items made in a sweatshop is the "cause".

Just because others do it, doesn't mean that it's right. But your logic already allows you to equate human lives with lumps of coal, so I doubt very much that your moral compass will wiggle at all when you think about this.

--
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by rowdent · 2006-03-20 05:34 · Score: 5, Informative

The Maquila Solidarity Network, one of the leading sweatshop activist organizations, stopped targeting Nike in 2003 because of their changing business practices. A December 2005 review of the current status of 25 companies' labour practices places them 2nd in terms of their efforts to address labour abuses.

--
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 05:40 · Score: 0

Are you utterly retarded? It would be perfectly possible for Nike to build and maintain their own factories in these countries where they enforce fair working rules and environments. But they don't.

Why don't you send $500 a month to those contries so the people won't have to work for Nike?
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Ucklak · 2006-03-20 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not sure where your moral compass is pointing being that you seem to have it in your mind that millions of 'sweatshop' employees would be better off starving and homeless.

I fail to see how Nike is the cause and not any other shoe or textile manufacturer. Do you wear shoes and if so, where are they made?
How is buying a wooden pair of clogs from the Netherlands from a kid who carved them any better?

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by albalbo · 2006-03-20 05:47 · Score: 1

Yeah, of course, because once we make Nike or whoever pay the extra couple of dollars for a fair minimum wage in those countries, and decent working conditions where people can work real hours and not get sick, all those jobs will definitely disappear.

--
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by DarkHelmet · 2006-03-20 06:01 · Score: 1

I think it's time for slashdot to have a +1 (Bastard) moderation.

--
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by consonant · 2006-03-20 06:01 · Score: 1

Let's see...

Nike = frickin overpriced shoes and accessories which are pretty much the same as those made by any other (except for that stupid thick tick mark)

Google = mostly free stuff, which for the most part is better than any of the competition's similar stuff.

Hmm...I RTFA, and still don't get it. What's in this for Google again?

--
[Slashdot Comments We Liked]
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by A_Duck_Named_Ping · 2006-03-20 06:04 · Score: 1

No need to quote 'sweatshops'. They are sweatshops.
Re: your question, 'Would they be better off...' understates the complexity of the economic factors. In an either/or situation, workers have no real choice, so I agree with the short view that the job is good. But, albalbo has it right: Nike perpetuates the environmental conditions that provide this either/or choice in the first place. Not only that, but when corporations exercise the option to employee workers in violation of US labor laws, they subvert the sound labor policies in this country. Why care? The implications of this choice affect U.S. productivity. In is not in the interest of the U.S. to allow U.S. corporations to behave in this way. Whether the U.S. has the right to legislate a remedy is a separate question, but in my opinion it is the right thing to do.
Ucklak, you may be playing the Devil's advocate by making a case for free markets rather than human rights. That's fine, but the economics of the free market are skewed by the low-cost labor overseas.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by eraser.cpp · 2006-03-20 06:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

If you read over the reports on fairlabor.org for Nike you'll find the conditions in many of their factories still largely deplorable.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 06:13 · Score: 0

Please add 'Nike and all the other shoe/textile/toy manufacturers'.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by drsquare · 2006-03-20 06:20 · Score: 1

I haven't bought a Nike product in over a decade, due to the dreadfully low quality. Nike have no football background, their sportswear is a joke that sells on marketing alone.

Btw their kits for the World Cup all look the same.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Tweekster · 2006-03-20 06:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

ahh yes the Nike lies pop up once again.... in reality. Nike did not own those factories (subcontractor that they nailed to the wall after it came to light) In fact they had numerous civil right leaders as well as UN ambassadors verify the much better working conditions that were the standard and not the exception to Nike. All told, they could do more, however in reality there factories were never as bad as what was claimed I havent bought a nike product in 10 years, but that is simply because i think they are overpriced and redicoulous looking

--
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by CouchP · 2006-03-20 06:49 · Score: 1

Why is giving kids a place to work a bad thing? I sweat all the time and it doesn't hurt me!
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by LordNimon · 2006-03-20 07:35 · Score: 1

You're not supposed to just boycott the sweatshops. You're supposed to buy instead shoes that are made not in sweatshops. If enough people do this, then sales at Nike will go down and sales at AmericanMadeShoeCompany will go up. The executives at Nike will notice this, and then start making their shoes at a better place, because they realize that consumers will pay more for non-sweatshop shoes.

--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by _ph1ux_ · 2006-03-20 07:37 · Score: 1

While I agree with your point - and I too have successfully boycotted (sp) Nike for as long as I can remember - I want to comment on the "between the lines" story here:

What's really interesting about this article is that we are seeing the Tip of the Iceberg in what could wind up being a powerhouse of technical services offered by Google.

Just like the Google hosting.

I had been predicting (to my self and a few friends only) what I was expecting to see from Google as the logical steps in their development:

Google hosting - what better way to index all the sites than if they are already hosted in your infrastructure
Google mail - same case
Technical services - as we now see with Nike - but I expect that this will become a larger offering.

I am not a Google fan-boy - but I have been watching their stride towards these types of steps with great interest - and have so far been successfully surmising what their next steps would be, along with most other people I assume - as it seems to be a fairly obvious progression...

But - the kicker here is the "don't be evil" statement. At some point Google will become that Microsoft or AT&T - public perception of them will be evil. Though it may just be out of shear jealousy over others' lack of resources to be able to pre-empt obvious next business steps - or even jealousy over not being a part of the development of this company.

Imagine 5 years from now - if Google is successful in their deployment of a private global network using their DC nodes and dark fiber they have been purchasing, what that will do to "Google specific QOS" - where their indexing traffic - or application traffic gets priority across those lines at specific times (or always) - it will, be amazing to see how a network like that will work and be managed.

The great thing I see though is how organically ideas are created here - but how quickly Google jumps on them. Though it does scare me a bit...

Wait to see if Google tech services begin to compete with IBM. (Not that it would be hard IBM tech services sucks - in my experience)
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by fm6 · 2006-03-20 12:26 · Score: 1

I have to admit I know nothing about Nike's sweatshop issues. But when you say there's nothing they can do about sweatshops, you're full of shit. With their purchasing power, they can easily force their suppliers to improve working conditions. This is something many other companies have done, in response to consumer pressure.
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by Saint+Fnordius · 2006-03-20 19:45 · Score: 1

The main fallacy here is ignoring slow change. I can't answer the questions *now*, but the questions that interest me are:

Is Nike offering better conditions *in comparison to other area industries*? Are those conditions so good that academics are leaving to work at these plants (as a seperate post pointed out with an Intel plant)? The key here is to raise the bar, but not to be disruptive about it.

Is the condition around Nike's factories been improving? Are the employees seeing an improvement in their standard of living? The key here is to be an evolutionary factor, not a retarding one.

Is Nike "sweatshop-hopping" or are they comitted over longer periods of time? How responsible are they?

I'll admit to being a bleeding-heart optimist, and openly state that I feel sweatshops are a transient state. Living conditions and wage expectations improve, and sweatshop owners move on to different countries until the world reaches a homogeneous level. The downside is that this will take decades (if not centuries)...
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by jt007 · 2006-03-20 23:14 · Score: 1

Fair enough point, but the harsh fact is that most consumers don't give a crap about where/how/in what conditions stuff was made. I don't believe for a minute that the average consumer is willing to pay more for the same product solely (no pun intended!) because of how it is produced - sure there are people that will, but your Average Joe and Sally Six Pack probably couldn't give a rats ass. If they go to buy new shoes with their hard earned money then IMHO 99 times out of 100 he will go for the best price (i.e. cheapest).

--
I never apologise, I'm sorry but that's just the way I am - Homer
Re:Should we invoke the "Do No Evil" clause here? by jt007 · 2006-03-20 23:17 · Score: 1

Publicity I guess. For all their 'evils' Nike is still a global leading brand so associating themselves with another i.e. Google its only going to draw more attention and get people talking about it. I mean we are all having this discussion so I guess the system works!

--
I never apologise, I'm sorry but that's just the way I am - Homer

Please name the sport correctly by toupsie · 2006-03-20 03:55 · Score: 5, Funny

It's not Soccer, it's Metric Football.

--
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

Re:Please name the sport correctly by Opportunist · 2006-03-20 04:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

No. It's just football.

For fringe group sports that go by the same name, you add the nation or region that practices it. Like AMERICAN football.

(Waiting for the flamebait-modding to roll in) :)

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by gfxguy · 2006-03-20 04:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

No flamebait modding here (and I do have points) - I agree 100%.

Let's see if I can make this clear: in just about every country that plays this sport, played almost exclusively by kicking the ball with your feet, it's called "foot" ball.

Here we have a sport played almost exclusively with your hands. It's called.. uh... "foot" ball. Brilliant.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by DrSkwid · 2006-03-20 04:12 · Score: 1, Informative

I think you'll find it's Association Football.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:Please name the sport correctly by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:13 · Score: 0

That sums up american logic quite well I think.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by plumby · 2006-03-20 04:14 · Score: 0

Who the hell modded this as informative???

Why would it be metric football? There's a 6 yard box, an 18 yard box, the penalty spot is 12 yards from the goal (which is 8 yards wide, by 8 feet high) etc. Sizes are admittedly often also quoted in metric, but this is simply because much of the world doesn't understand imperial measurements, and as a result you end up with silly measurements like a goal that is 7.32 metres wide by 2.44 metres high, but the original sizes are quite definitely imperial.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by daranz · 2006-03-20 04:16 · Score: 1

Let's just call it Football Where A Bunch Of Guys Attempt To Kick A Round Ball as opposed to Football Where A Bunch Of Guys In Protective Gear Keep Crashing Into Each Other. That would make it really easy for everyone, and nobody would have any problem with determining what the other person is talking about.

Instead of Joga.com - Soccer-themed social networking website, you could say Joga.com - Football Where A Bunch Of Guys Attempt To Kick A Round Ball-themed networking website.

--
This is a sig. It is appended to the end of comments I post.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by offput · 2006-03-20 04:18 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Why was this modded as informative? funny maybe, and that's a tenuous maybe...
Re:Please name the sport correctly by hcdejong · 2006-03-20 04:24 · Score: 1

Relax. 'Informative' is just used as a Karma-friendly alternative to 'Funny'.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by Rude+Turnip · 2006-03-20 04:30 · Score: 1

"Football Where A Bunch Of Guys In Protective Gear Keep Crashing Into Each Other."

Or, as this American calls it, "Rugby for Pussies."

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Re:Please name the sport correctly by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:46 · Score: 0

burn him
Re:Please name the sport correctly by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 05:19 · Score: 0

They should called it handball so the INF can make fun of them wearing all that equipment.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 05:19 · Score: 0

Just so you'll have the opportunity to get off your high horse (yes, it's a pun), "football" games might very well have originally referred to games played on foot, i.e. not played on horseback. So American football would be just as much a football game as Association football.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by fritzk3 · 2006-03-20 05:24 · Score: 1

Well... despite the seeming misnomer, the American version of football doesn't really offer much entertainment if the participants don't use their feet to move around the playing field. Besides, can anyone think of another name that we should call the sport that the NFL plays (that doesn't include the word "football")?

--
All your sig are belong to us.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by 91degrees · 2006-03-20 05:29 · Score: 1

the American version of football doesn't really offer much entertainment if the participants don't use their feet to move around the playing field.

Doesn't that argument apply to just about every game with a ball apart from netball, polo, and water polo?
Re:Please name the sport correctly by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 05:31 · Score: 0

can anyone think of another name that we should call the sport that the NFL plays (that doesn't include the word "football")?

GridIron
Re:Please name the sport correctly by fritzk3 · 2006-03-20 05:35 · Score: 1

Yeah, except maybe Murderball. *ducks*

--
All your sig are belong to us.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by finnif · 2006-03-20 05:51 · Score: 1

Ya know, when I go to England I don't tell them how to spell "gray" or "color".

300m people in this country agree that, in English, "football" is an oblong ball. Why do the Europeans always have to argue about this point like we're using our language improperly? Get over it.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by yet+another+coward · 2006-03-20 06:10 · Score: 1

Here we have a sport played almost exclusively with your hands. It's called.. uh... "foot" ball. Brilliant.

Almost exclusively? Name a footless player in the NFL.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 06:12 · Score: 0

Yes, in newspapers in days of yore, the rugby and association football results were listed under the "Football" banner, with the association football results under the "Assoc." heading and the rugby results under the "Rugby" heading.

So, in slang terms, rugby became "rugger" and association football became "soccer" (with the leading "a" dropped from "assoc" to make pronunciation easier.

However, "football" is the dominant name for association football worldwide, and it is the world's biggest team sport, so if you just say "football" chances are that is what people will think you mean.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by rufty_tufty · 2006-03-20 07:05 · Score: 1

True, but in England a football is round, therefore in English the ball is round.
If America wants to fork the language, then I'm sure that's fine, but recall that American is a fork. Besides for the rest of the world, (i.e. 5-6 Billion or so) a football is a round ball.

I suppose that depends on who you invite to your "world series" though?

BTW it might be worth remembering that the internet is not confined to America, so speaking of "this country" needs to be done with care. The world is becomming more international - America would do well to remember that ignoring the way the rest of the world does things may not always be the best policy - sometimes it is better to fit in with the crowd...

Or were you going for funny and I was being obtuse?

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Re:Please name the sport correctly by DrSkwid · 2006-03-20 07:07 · Score: 1

In Rugby Football the ball can only be controlled with the hands, though kicking does play a part.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:Please name the sport correctly by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 07:55 · Score: 1, Funny

"Why do the Europeans always have to argue about this point."

Because football was being played in England (with a round ball) before we colonised North America.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 10:29 · Score: 0

It's just called "Football". But the point is that football is not a sport -- it's just a game, 'cos people play it. Road cycling e.g. is a sport (as in the olympic idea).
Re:Please name the sport correctly by slavemowgli · 2006-03-20 13:05 · Score: 1

Or you could just call it ("American football", that is) what it really is - Rugby with some extra armor worn by wussies who're not disciplined enough to play the game without needing it. ^_~

--
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by strider44 · 2006-03-20 15:49 · Score: 1

Funnily enough in Australia the word "Football" can mean any one of four things: Soccer, Rugby Union, Rugby League, or Aussie Rules. It never means Gridiron (or American Football). To figure out which football someone means you have to read in context. However you're right - we mostly use the sports by their actual name but when "football" is used in an international context it usually means soccer.
Re:Please name the sport correctly by finnif · 2006-03-20 18:27 · Score: 1

Like I said. People say things differently everywhere you go, that doesn't mean one person is wrong and another is "correct". Even in the US, we have "pop" and we have "soda". We've got "grinders", "subs", "wedges", "po'boys", "heroes", etc.. All of these words refer to the same thing (a sandwich), but no one goes around correcting each other about it. It's just tiresome, and I absolutely hate it when one of you guys take time out of a normal conversation to tell us we're wrong to call it football.

More generally, I'm just tired of everyone who comes to the US and tells us how wrong we are about everything. Our cars are too big, our houses are too big, we eat too much, blah blah blah. Somehow, somewhere, a country that controls 20% of the global product with 5% of the world population must be doing something right.

Anyway, all I'm asking is to give it a rest, it's annoying. BTW, what makes more money, the NFL or the English Premier League? (I don't know, that's a serious question).

In a related story ... by ignatus · 2006-03-20 03:59 · Score: 1

A new website has been lauched, dedicated to fairplay soccer:
joghurt.com

--
- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Re:In a related story ... by ThatsNotFunny · 2006-03-20 05:20 · Score: 1

JoghurtTheWise.com?
JoghurtThePowerful.com?
JoghurtTheAllKnowing.com?

Please, please... It's just plain Joghurt.com

--
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello

Google web development by truthsearch · 2006-03-20 03:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Google provides the technical expertise.

Is this becoming a threat to "traditional" web development companies like the one I work for? Will Google be eating up development work for some of the larger sites?

--
Developers: We can use your help.

Re:Google web development by bigtrike · 2006-03-20 04:10 · Score: 1

Is this becoming a threat to "traditional" web development companies like the one I work for? Will Google be eating up development work for some of the larger sites?

You have no need to worry if your company writes applications which some day make it out of beta.

A first for google by Janitha · 2006-03-20 04:00 · Score: 1

This seems like a first for google (at least in my observation), specially since all the other services they offer are very broad. For example news.google.com gives news of all types, maps.google.com gives maps to the whole country. But this stands out since it focuses on a paticular group of people, soccer fans. Of course this could be simply because this is done jointly with Nike.

Then again, maybe they will do the same for football, tennis, videogames and so on and in no time everyone will be included. Special Searches comes in to mind when talking about paticular groups, but thats just search related, not service based.

Re:A first for google by Gonoff · 2006-03-20 04:58 · Score: 1

You are not going to get much bigger an audience. Aside from the USA and a very small group, the whole world plays this game and they call it football, not soccer.

Perhaps not everyone is enthusiastic - but that still leaves you a few billion who are. It is a global link from S America, Australia, Middle East, Europe and everywhere else. The World Cup is not named after some forgotten newspaper. It concerns the whole world - except, perhaps the USA.

--
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Re:A first for google by generic-man · 2006-03-20 05:15 · Score: 1

The World Series isn't named after a newspaper either. Blame 19th-century sportswriters for their overly-grandiose statements, then watch the World Baseball Classic final tonight to know whether Cuba or Japan is truly the world's best baseball power.

Beaten at a game we invented*. Man, now I know how England feels.

* If the true inventors of baseball wanted to play, England would have sent over a team of schoolgirls to play rounders. They didn't.

--
For more information, click here.

Mmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:00 · Score: 0

(Score: 5, I shouldn't have laughed at that)

Re:Mmm... by AnonymousPrick · 2006-03-20 04:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

(Score: 5, I shouldn't have laughed at that)
Why not? Humor is the best way of dealing with the ugliness in the World - especially with things that are beyond our control (yeah, like not buying their products will make a difference when there are millions of folks who don't give a shit and buy it.). That's why there's so much comedy and humor around death. It's the folks who have the attitude of "It's not funny! Don't laugh!" who really worry me and who I stay away from.

--
Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Re:Mmm... by neoform · 2006-03-20 04:29 · Score: 1

Alright, next time you get beaten at work for not producing enough tshirts during your 16 hour shift, i'll be sure to call you up and tell you a nice joke at your expense and tell you to lighten up, it's .. just a joke!

--
MABASPLOOM!
Re:Mmm... by c6gunner · 2006-03-20 05:09 · Score: 1

You deserve a smack upside the head.

In case you're unaware, Asian sweat-shop workers probably don't have access to /. and are therefore unlikely to run accross the joke. Moreover, they'd be unlikely to understand what all the fuss is about anyway. That way of life is perfectly natural for them; not only would they not understand the joke, but they'd probably be pretty confused about your concern, and would be wondering why you want to put them out of business.
Re:Mmm... by ThirdOfThree · 2006-03-20 05:39 · Score: 1

I suppose this type of ignorance should be expected here, but come on. Are you serious?

So just because kids whose parents are abusive don't know a life outside of what they are exposed to means that we shouldn't attempt to help these children? Just because you do something one way means that there is no possible way that there is a better way to accomplish the same task? Just because people in poorer countries don't know what it's like to have a full stomach after a meal means that we shouldn't try to assuage world hunger?

Your viewpoint disgusts me, but who am I to call you out on it?
Re:Mmm... by c6gunner · 2006-03-20 06:44 · Score: 1

You're going to help them by boycotting Nike? So ultimately you want all western companies to cease operating "sweatshops". Which in turn gives them no incentive to operate there. Which means, they all pack up and leave.

How exactly does that help those people? You're putting them all out of work and letting them starve. Isn't this a case of "in order to save the villiage, we had to burn the villiage"?

Your viewpoint disgusts me, but who am I to call you out on it?

That's about the only rational thing you've said so far...
Re:Mmm... by AnonymousPrick · 2006-03-20 07:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Dude, it's not worth arguing with those folks. They've never actually talked to those folks. I did. And did I get an earfull! As far as they're concerned we Westeners should mind our own business. They get pissed because, as far as they're concerned, we don't want them to cut their rain forests down, we don't want them working at our factories over there, and we don't want them to do anything to make a better living. The grandparents don't realize that if these folks aren't working in those "sweat shops", they'll be cutting down their rain forests or something else that's far worse. And sometimes, paying them remotely close to a western wage will disrupt the local economy.
For example, Intel, IIRC, started paying some of their workers a much better wage than normal 3rd world wages. It was so good, the local physicians gave up their practices to work at the INtel plant. So, the locals lost all of their medical care because Intel decided ( to shut up the sanctimonious white sub-urban liberal arts college students) to pay a better wage.
Those folks above really need to see the big picture. Those folks know what to do and they'll do it in their own time - their way. We need to respect that.

--
Saturday is April 1. Slashdot will be shut down. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Re:Mmm... by ThirdOfThree · 2006-03-20 07:56 · Score: 1

I didn't say I was boycotting Nike, nor did I say that all western companies should stop using sweatshops. What would be nice is if these sweatshops got some standards and treated their workers like human beings. I agree with you; putting them out of work would make them worse off than they already are. I just think your particular logic is ridiculous. "They don't know any better so we don't need to help them" doesn't make sense to me.

Also, I don't happen to own any Nike products, but that's only because I think they're too expensive. =)
Re:Mmm... by debraj · 2006-03-20 09:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

The reality is this: companies like Nike, Walmart, and others who indirectly run "sweatshops" in Bangladesh, Pakistan and other countries may not live up to the labor standards in first world economies.

However, in parts of the world where this is rampant, these "sweatshops" are also the best thing that happened to the people who are employed here. It is permitting them to nudge their way out of abject poverty and sustain themselves. This is very serious.

While activism and human rights efforts have helped to uplift the working conditions, and push for more reasonable labor laws in these countries, if these "sweatshops" were to be closed down as a result of this media- and public-activism, that would truly do more harm than good to the population in question.
Re:Mmm... by kubrick · 2006-03-20 12:31 · Score: 1

We need to respect that.

... and if doing so can help make our billionaires even richer, well, it'd be downright unpatriotic to object.

--
deus does not exist but if he does
Re:Mmm... by c6gunner · 2006-03-20 13:45 · Score: 1

You know, I'm getting sick and tired of this particular brand of logic. "If something is good for the rich, or for "us", then it must be bad for everyone else". What a load of horse shit. When will you realize that the rich getting richer generaly helps everyone involved in the proccess? People like you whine and bitch about the fact that the "ultra-rich" are so much better off than our "poor", while our poor in fact enjoy a lifestyle which would be considered comfortable, or even decadent in most of the world, and the "sweatshop" labourers employed by our horrible "ultra rich" corporations make money to support themselves and their families in an environment where jobs are extremely difficult to come by. You don't give a shit about the fact that capitalist economies continualy outperform socialist economies, and manage to provide a more comfortable life for everyone involved in the procces, including the "poor" and unemployed. Instead you cling to socialist and communist ideals which continualy fail to live up to the promised "paradise" we keep hearing about. The level of ignorance, and the ammount of self-delusion required to maintain your beleifs continualy astounds me. It's even more unfortiunate that these sorts of beleifs seem to blossom in our "educational" institutions, while even poor uneducated farmers in third world countries can understand the realities of life. Education is supposed to erradicate ignorance, but it certainly doesn't seem to be working in our universities and colleges.

Your beleifs aren't "unpatriotic". They're just totaly fucking wrong, and, if carried out to their inevitable conclusion, outright inhumane. It seems like half the worlds problems are created by well-meaning idiots.
Re:Mmm... by c6gunner · 2006-03-20 13:56 · Score: 1

I didn't say I was boycotting Nike, nor did I say that all western companies should stop using sweatshops. What would be nice is if these sweatshops got some standards and treated their workers like human beings. I agree with you; putting them out of work would make them worse off than they already are. I just think your particular logic is ridiculous. "They don't know any better so we don't need to help them" doesn't make sense to me.

Ah, so we're just having a bit of a misunderstanding. I absolutely beleive in helping these people as much as we can, I just disagree with the way that most "activists" would have us do it. Shutting down "sweatshops" is no solution, and I'm glad you agree on that. Paying them more is possible, but it has to be done carefuly, and it would in most cases be a very small increase. Otherwise you risk damaging the local economy and creating more problems. Improving conditions at the factories is deffinitely something that we should be looking at. As far as I know however, most of them are already at, or above, the standard for the host countries, so I'm not sure how much of a difference could be made there. Working hours could be reduced, however I very much doubt these places have mandatory 16 hour shifts to begin with - the workers end up working those hours because they want to make more money. If you put a limit on maximum number of work hours per week, most of them would just try to find second jobs. There's all sorts of complications when you start trying to change these things; they're not nearly as simple as "activists" would have you beleive. And I think that's intentional; it's much harder to get people to come to a rally that's based on a bunch of minor, meticulously planned out changes, and MUCH easier to get them to rally behind absolutely rediculous ideas which can be printed on a cardboard sign or worn on a t-shirt. Who wants to carry a picket that says "Pay African workers an extra penny an hour!" when they can carry signs saying "Get Corporate Fachist Pigs Out Of Africa!".

Also, I don't happen to own any Nike products, but that's only because I think they're too expensive. =)

On that we can deffinitely agree :)
Re:Mmm... by kubrick · 2006-03-20 17:06 · Score: 1

You don't need to spend your time or money defending your bosses. They have enough resources to do it for themselves -- by force if needs be.

--
deus does not exist but if he does

Football by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:01 · Score: 5, Informative

It's football, you American clods!

Re:Football by pryonic · 2006-03-20 04:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

I always wondered why the Americans refer to it as football when you spend most of the time carrying the ball. At least in football (as in what the rest of the world plays) you use your foot to control the ball...

--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Re:Football by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:38 · Score: 0

Because when it got its name, there was no passing of the ball. You moved the ball around 'on foot'. It was basically a more linear version of rugby. Has the same base sport as Rugby and Soccer though. Wish they had retained the skulls...
Re:Football by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:42 · Score: 0

Well, it was originally called Association Football.

This saves any confusion with American Football or Rugby Football.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(soccer)_nam es on this exact issue.
Re:Football by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 05:37 · Score: 0

i always wondered why they call soccer football... i mean the ball isn't shaped like a foot and you kick the ball not "foot" it. They should call it kickball
Re:Football by nickos · 2006-03-20 17:56 · Score: 1

Instead of calling Association football "soccer", why don't we call American football "mercer"? It makes just as much sense, perhaps more so given that everyone outside the US calls the game where you kick the ball using your feet "football"...

Also, if you'd read the article you linked to you would have read that it's the confused americans who started calling it soccer:

originally called the U.S. Football Association, and was formed in 1913 by the merger of the American Football Association and the American Amateur Football Association. The word "soccer" was added to the name in 1945, making it the U.S. Soccer Football Association, and it did not drop the word "football" until 1974, when it assumed its current name.

Joga = play by gfxguy · 2006-03-20 04:01 · Score: 1

And it's not metric football, it's fútbol.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.

Re:Joga = play by computadorka · 2006-03-20 04:19 · Score: -1

thats what im talkin about! Arriba Mexico Cabrones!
Re:Joga = play by tomcres · 2006-03-20 05:08 · Score: 1

Actually, it's spelled futebol in Portuguese.
Re:Joga = play by srussia · 2006-03-20 07:21 · Score: 1

Actually, joga="rack" in Tagalog, as in "Gisele has a nice rack." (keeping with the Brazilian theme).

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Next up by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:02 · Score: 0

Playboy and Google team up for Jerker.com.

Google using microsoft technology? by WildR · 2006-03-20 04:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

What's is my best surprise when I start looking the page? the website is based on microsoft technology, only see the pages format -> .aspx (ASP .NET)

Re:Google using microsoft technology? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:09 · Score: 0

Many other web sites are. So what is your point? It is like you see Microsoft technology as evil.
Re:Google using microsoft technology? by isotonik81 · 2006-03-20 04:22 · Score: 1

Google is still a microsoft product company. Most of their main systems are MS XP. Its mostly the backend that is not MS based. If they have to partner with companies like Nike, they have to take the most common dev platform. So maybe for Nike, Python is out of the question because they do not have the skill set and ASP would be the best
Re:Google using microsoft technology? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-03-20 04:27 · Score: 1

Many other web sites are. So what is your point? It is like you see Microsoft technology as evil.

Google is well known for their clean Web design, using open standards. They are also well known for their use of open source servers. It is very notable, then that they are using Microsoft based, proprietary solutions for this particular site. Does this indicate a change in Google's methods? Does this indicate the site was outsourced? Does this indicate a new team within Google? Does this indicate that Google has less involvement with the content of this site then is being reported?

I don't know, but it is certainly worth mentioning the difference.
Re:Google using microsoft technology? by generic-man · 2006-03-20 05:20 · Score: 1

Which standards are you talking about? Google doesn't develop W3C-valid pages. Who do you think they are -- Microsoft?

--
For more information, click here.
Re:Google using microsoft technology? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 06:12 · Score: 0

The .NET Framework and C# both have been ported to open source, and been rattified bla bla bla.
Re:Google using microsoft technology? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-03-20 06:21 · Score: 0

The .NET Framework and C# both have been ported to open source, and been rattified bla bla bla.

Open Source and standards are different things, which is why I mentioned them separately. How do you "port" an language? ASP is not an open standard and has not been "ratified" by anyone I know of. Show me a Google page, aside from the one mentioned here that ends in ".asp" okay? If you can't find one, maybe you will understand why some of us find this unusual and possibly significant.
Re:Google using microsoft technology? by rufty_tufty · 2006-03-20 07:07 · Score: 1

The reason it's not valid is so that it is smaller loads faster. Thus saving a fortune in bandwidth.

As long as it works on all browsers, why does it matter?

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Re:Google using microsoft technology? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 07:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

"aspx" is asp.net, which is the web-wrapper for .NET. Note the "x" that differentiates it from "classic asp".

Both the .NET Framework and C# have been ported to Linux by the open source community, as an open source package called Mono.

Two key facts about Mono:
- Based on the ECMA/ISO standards
- Open Source, Free Software.
Re:Google using microsoft technology? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-03-20 09:47 · Score: 1

Yes, I'm aware of what Mono is. There is also an ASP module for Apache. What does this have to do with the discussion at hand? The servers in question are almost certainly running IIS based upon the profiling mentioned in this thread and than means closed source servers. This is pretty different for Google. Further they are server up ASP which is a pretty big change fro AJAX. These facts indicate that this site is anomalous, hence the comment and the speculation.
Re:Google using microsoft technology? by generic-man · 2006-03-20 10:22 · Score: 1

Yes, I'm sure Google with its $800 trillion market cap has trouble paying the bandwidth bills.

And you are supposed to make your code validate because <rant style="child" whininess="100"> the standards are STANDARDS and you are expected to comply with them!!!!</rant>

--
For more information, click here.
Re:Google using microsoft technology? by rufty_tufty · 2006-03-20 10:32 · Score: 1

Ok, so they're rich, so? Why not be richer if it does no harm? Only a fool throws money away he doesn't have to.

I'm willing to bet they have a standard fully compliant template they can use when a browser is encountered they can't produce code for. For the moment it is good engineering sense to optimise the design as much as possible.

Following the rules just because they are the rules only leads to incompetence, jobs-worth-ness and general fuckwittery.
As soon as this causes someone an actual problem and not just pedentry, then I'm right with you, until then saving bandwidth is always worth it.

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Re:Google using microsoft technology? by generic-man · 2006-03-20 10:44 · Score: 1

At 11:27 AM EST this morning, 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF wrote:

"Google is well known for their clean Web design, using open standards."

The first part of that sentence makes sense; the second part does not. I responded to the notion that Google uses "open standards" with a remark that Google's web site does not adhere to any published standard of which I'm aware. I understand and agree with the notion that standards for standards' sake is a stupid pursuit, but one should not credit Google with an achievement they have not made. That's all my response was intended to say.

--
For more information, click here.
Re:Google using microsoft technology? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 02:22 · Score: 0

orkut is on aspx as well, it's shocking joga.com is as well

strange stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:03 · Score: 1, Interesting

This is a strange animal, the help center is python http://help.joga.com/support, but the login is aspx. WTF??.. the privacy is googlishm (is a Google Account).

Looks like a special Orkut server mixed with Google stuff. The nike reference seems casual.

Re:strange stuff by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:45 · Score: 0

It is a philshing site...don't enter your google login info!!!!!!
hehe...just testing your philshing meter level...seriously I think google need to worry about letting 3rd party ( join ventures) use gmail accounts.

This looks like a perfect place.. by digitaldc · 2006-03-20 04:03 · Score: -1, Offtopic

...to post an essay about Nike's exploitation of cheap labour in far-Eastern countries.

--
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson

Superb marketing! - NO "gsports.com" by NoSuchGuy · 2006-03-20 04:07 · Score: 1

Superb marketing!

No "gsports.com" for Google Sports instead they use "joga.com". The 'g' in joga stands for Google like Gmail stands for Google Mail!

Oh you marketing overlords I am at your service.....

--
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/

Obligatory sweatshop reference by x2A · 2006-03-20 04:08 · Score: 1, Flamebait

"While Nike provides the content (via its army of sponsored athletes, among others,..." ...and entered at $0.02/hour by kids in Vietnam

--
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia

Social networking and IM by Lord+Satri · 2006-03-20 04:09 · Score: 1

"For example news.google.com gives news of all types, maps.google.com gives maps to the whole country."

You could add Jabber (Google Talk) mapping to the bunch, which is closer to social networking, such as this joga.com is, than Google Local.

--
Animoog.org

New tagline by Rob+T+Firefly · 2006-03-20 04:11 · Score: 5, Funny

G o o o o o o o o o o a l!!!!!!!!!!

--
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned

Re:New tagline by ArsenneLupin · 2006-03-20 04:42 · Score: 1

G o o o o o o o o o o a l!!!!!!!!!!
Considering that the site is .aspx, I'd rather replace that final l with tse.
Fortunately (for them), the site is invite-only for now, and the login technology seems to be Google Accounts based (i.e. not .asp).
Re:New tagline by birder · 2006-03-20 05:21 · Score: 1

G o o o o o o o o o o g l e !!!!!!!!!!

Does anyone else think by endrue · 2006-03-20 04:16 · Score: 0, Flamebait

that this site looks terrible? The layout and color are horrible!

- Andrew

--
I meta-moderate because I care.

Re:Does anyone else think by mgblst · 2006-03-20 04:30 · Score: 1

Nah, it looks ok to me. It doesn't have thousans of links on one page - which immediately turns me of. The colours are a bit dark, but not too bad. It isn't overload with adds. What more could you want?

How do you pronounce that? by solarbob · 2006-03-20 04:17 · Score: 1

Yoga? Joe-ga? Least make it something easy to spell please folks otherwise its going to get very confusion...

--
SolarVPS - Quality Windows and Linux Virtual Servers

Re:How do you pronounce that? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:26 · Score: 0

Joga means play, in Portuguese. It's pronounced "joh-ga".
Re:How do you pronounce that? by jcorreia · 2006-03-20 05:35 · Score: 1

Joga stands for "Play It" in Portuguese. Orkut has been very popular in soccer-crazed Brazil, so Google may be able to make a brand extension here. Brazil uses portuguese as main language. I guess English people read it as "Yoga"...
Re:How do you pronounce that? by vhogemann · 2006-03-20 05:47 · Score: 1

Well,

If they got the name JOGA from the portuguese verb JOGAR (== to play), you can say JOH-GA, with an very open sound.

--
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Re:How do you pronounce that? by Nikker · 2006-03-20 05:52 · Score: 1

You just made my day. Thats like being russian and saying the english word 'cloud' will never be used because it is difficult to understand.

Keep up the good work!!!

--
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Re:How do you pronounce that? by babyrat · 2006-03-20 08:24 · Score: 1

Least make it something easy to spell please folks otherwise its going to get very confusion...

At least use proper grammar.

How much easier to spell than a 4 letter word that contains two consonants and two vowels, and no 'i before e' or silent letters?

If this were actaully an english word it would probably be in a grade 2 spelling book. In fact, it is probably in grade 2 spelling books across Portugal and Brazil.

Soccer sucks! QWZX by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:17 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Soccer is PROVABLY a bad sport. One of the primary essences of a sport is the offensive / defensive balance. Soccer is completely out of balance; the defense is far too strong. When a 2-0 score is a blowout, then you know the sport is out of balance.

More proof: tiebreakers. How the hell can you do penalty kicks to decide a game? It should be decides on the field, using some subset of rules. But since defense is so out of balance, they know they can't do it that way.

Do you know why Soccer doesn't catch on in the US? It's because we have so many sport choices. We know that soccer sucks, because we have sports to compare them to. Most other countries have very few choices for professional sports. People is Europe think we just haven't been exposed to soccer, but almost every child here plays soccer. We know soccer. We just know that it's a bad sport.

The solution? I've always thought that widening the goals posts would do a lot for the sport. I'd say the "natural" score for soccer should be around 20 goals. It shouldn't be the case that if someone gets a two goal lead, then the game is over.

Unfortunately, I doubt they'll ever fix the game. Soccer has potential; it doesn't have to suck. But there's too much history and momentum to fix it. Ah well.

Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by sprintstar · 2006-03-20 04:30 · Score: 1

I think the problem in the USA is that in order to be on TV it has to be able to stop every 5 mins for advert breaks. Hence you end up with your funny sports. Whats even funnier is that, although you are alone in the world, you still think you're right.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:41 · Score: 0

I think the problem in the USA is that in order to be on TV it has to be able to stop every 5 mins for advert breaks.
Soccer IS on TV, we just don't watch it. If that was such a huge advantage, don't you think that people would gravitate to watching it?
Whats even funnier is that, although you are alone in the world, you still think you're right.
Yes, because we know the majority is always right.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by Mantorp · 2006-03-20 05:00 · Score: 2, Informative

why not let every goal be worth 7 points instead? Yay artificial high scoring!!!
Defense isn't always a bad thing, the same people that tell you soccer is too defensive will rave about shutout pitching in baseball and redzone defense in American football.
I thought soccer would catch on here once the national team started beating legitimate countries, but they've been very good for years now (currently ranked 5th by FIFA) and still nobody cares.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 05:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

As a previous poster said, football doesn't catch on the USA because you cannot insert ads every five minutes. But I'd add that it's not violent enough for the USA (I'm thinking of American football and ice hockey). Plus, the score doesn't look spectacular at the end of the game.
I agree that a draw in a playoff shouldn't be resolved via penalty kicks, that's awful. I'm for the golden goal, but for some reason it didn't success..
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 05:08 · Score: 0

Yes, because we know the majority is always right.
Nope, in US vs the World, US superiority is always right.
"It's because we have so many sport choices. We know that soccer sucks, because we have sports to compare them to. Most other countries have very few choices for professional sports."
hehe thx for a good laugh! But being constantly reminded that Bush is not alone among Americans in his world view and knowledge is scary at the same time.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by tony1343 · 2006-03-20 05:42 · Score: 1

Ice hockey is Canadian. It is also popular in the United States (more NHL teams here since we have a lot more people). However, ice hokey is very unpopular on American television. It gets horrible ratings and is aired on some obscure sports channel (outdoor sports network I think) not even ESPN or Fox Sports (at least last time I checked). Not too popular and then after the strike, it became really not popular. Also, our sport of baseball has caught on in much of the world (latin america and japan), and hopefully this will continue.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by Dark4Sorrow · 2006-03-20 05:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Uh, where have you been?
Soccer IS catching on in the US.
It's the fastest growing sport in the US.
It's also the world's most popular sport.

Why is baseball the favorite sport in the US?
Because we're a bunch of lazy turds who like
to stand around doing nothing. That's baseball.
Tell me that you actually consider a baseball
play an athlete and I'll laugh at you.

Play a real sport: soccer.

Your generalizing that "we" think soccer is a bad
sport, etc.. is just that: generalizing.

Get out of the house and away from the computer and
take your 150 lb. spare tire with you.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by dc29A · 2006-03-20 05:46 · Score: 1

I agree that a draw in a playoff shouldn't be resolved via penalty kicks, that's awful. I'm for the golden goal, but for some reason it didn't success

Not many people have the endurance to keep running up and downfield for a long time. A football game is 90 minutes plus 30 minutes extra time (if needed). Running up and down 120 minutes is very tiering, and there are genuine health concerns why the FIFA doesn't extend extra time.

The problem with penalty kicks is that they are random. No skill involved. Ironic for a sport that requires a great deal of skill. The NHL went back to penalties to decide tie games, so threre are good sides of deciding games with penalties. But, due to the random nature of penalties in football, it's a turn off.

As for football in the US, as other people pointed out, you can't put commercial breaks in televised football games every five minutes, so no major network wants them. No major network plays the games, no exposure, people won't play it.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by dc29A · 2006-03-20 06:06 · Score: 1

(currently ranked 5th by FIFA)

FIFA rankings are as accurate as a tarot card reading. The way points are calculated is flawed. If a lower ranking team beats a higher ranking team in an important game, they get a score multiplier (1.5 to 2.0, or something like that). It's the same if the last place New York Yankees beat the top spot Boston Red Sox and instead of their 2 points for the standing they get 4 because the rangers were a better team. Not to mention previous year scores also count. As if the Red Sox would start the season with 20 points because they were last year's champions. Stupid.

Just look at France in 2002 World Cup. Second FIFA ranking (or was it first? doesn't matter anyways) didn't even get to elimination round. Teams beating them got huge boost in rankings. Where they really that good or France simply being weak? The different teams on continents also get their score adjusted differently because even the FIFA knows that nothing comes close to Europe or South America. Again, if a team pulls an upstet and this team is from a handicapped continent, it will get a huge ranking boost. It doesn't really tell the real story. Could have been a fluke, bad luck, whatever, it's not consistent ranking.

FIFA needs to count rankings like they do in other sports/leagues: win = 3 points, tie away = 2 points, tie home = 1 point and loss = 0. By adding different conditions to the value of the victory they distort the real rankings.

With the current formula, it will be next to impossible for any team to displace a powerhouse like Brasil on the rankings.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 06:07 · Score: 0

why not let every goal be worth 7 points instead? Yay artificial high scoring!!!
If you're going to criticize a sport, at least know what you're talking about. In football, a touchdown is worth six points, and the extra point is worth 1. A field goal is worth 3. A safety is worth 2. The point isn't "artificial high scoring", it's that a touchdown is worth twice a field goal, and three times a safety.
Defense isn't always a bad thing, the same people that tell you soccer is too defensive will rave about shutout pitching in baseball and redzone defense in American football.
The point is defensive *balance*, not that any defense is bad. The defense and offense should be equally strong.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 06:33 · Score: 0

Why is baseball the favorite sport in the US?
It isn't. American Football is by far the most popular sport. Basketball might be more popular than baseball at this point, but I'm not sure.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by Mantorp · 2006-03-20 06:45 · Score: 1

Well, seeing that the rankings don't really matter except as conversational fodder I don't see what would be gained by changing it to your way. If countries would get the same ranking boost by beating Vanuatu as they would beating Brazil then the rankings would truly be misleading and useless. For the most part the current ranking acts as a barometer of how the teams have been faring the last few years, but I agree that USA and Mexico do get help by playing the other weaker CONCACAF countries so much. However, both have been backing it up by also playing well out of their region and advancing to the second round of the World Cup on a somewhat consistent basis.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by drsquare · 2006-03-20 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Soccer is completely out of balance; the defense is far too strong. When a 2-0 score is a blowout, then you know the sport is out of balance.

Don't let the erratic scoring system fool you, American football is very low scoring, and has touchdowns no more often than soccer has goals. Didn't the latest superbowl have only four touchdowns in four hours? Maybe if a goal in soccer was worth twelve points you'd think it was more interesting?

You neglect the fact that a low scoring game makes the scoring much more interesting, notice how a goal in soccer is a massive event, whereas scoring in basketball is completely irrelevent? A defense-orientated game is much more tactically interesting than where teams score every time they go forwards.

Do you know why Soccer doesn't catch on in the US?

Do you know why baseball doesn't catch on in Nigeria? The answer is just as irrelevent and uninteresting. For the record, more Americans play soccer than gridiron, which is largely just watched on TV. So much for American football being a 'sport', unless in America watching TV counts as a sport.

You know that in America, when talking about a sporting event, people spend more time talking about the adverts, sponsors TV channels, half-time shows, announcers etc than they do the actual game? That just about says it all.

We know that soccer sucks, because we have sports to compare them to.

You know that other countries also have other sports? Some countries even play baseball and basketball, and are actually better at it than Americans. But then in other countries, sport is about sport, it's not just a TV circus.

but almost every child here plays soccer. We know soccer. We just know that it's a bad sport.

They play it even though it's a bad sport? If it was that bad, why aren't all the kids playing gridiron instead? Maybe they've been brought up with the American ethic that gridiron is something to be watched on TV rather than played.

The solution? I've always thought that widening the goals posts would do a lot for the sport.

Yeah, that just about reinforces the stereotype of Americans having low attention spans. The only thing your idea would do is to dumb down the game to make it appeal to Americans, but we don't want people like you watching the game. We want people interested in the sport, not a Hollywood-style Entertainment Spectacle with cheerleaders and half-time shows, where the sport itself is just a sideshow.

Ever been to an NBA game? They have to pipe music over the tannoy throughout the entire game otherwise all the fans fall asleep. Great sport that eh?

Soccer has potential

If being the out and out, undisputed biggest and most popular game in the world is 'potential', then what exactly is the finished product? A few niche sports played almost entirely in North America?
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 07:19 · Score: 0

The point is defensive *balance*, not that any defense is bad. The defense and offense should be equally strong.

what is the point you are trying to make here? what kind of a scoreline would determine whether or not such "balance" exists? prejudiced people will always discerdit football (futbal) based on its usual low scoring results (compared to american sports) and pay no attention to how well a game is played tactically.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by romcabrera · 2006-03-20 07:19 · Score: 1

No skill involved

Are you kidding? No skill involved in penalty kicks? I see penalty kicks as a means of answering this question: "What would happen if they continue their scoring attempts?". Simple. The team with the best scorers (high scoring skills) and best goalkeeper (skill, or not?) wins.
Take it as a "sampling" of what would happen if time would continue going on. Of course, very simplified as there is only one attacker and one goalkeeper per try. But as another Poster said, this happens after 120', they all are exhausted!
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by KenAndCorey · 2006-03-20 11:46 · Score: 1

The NHL went back to penalties to decide tie games, so threre are good sides of deciding games with penalties.

Only regular season games, not the playoffs. In the playoffs, a game can go on indefinitely (although over 2 hours is fairly uncommon).

I personally don't like the shoot-out in football or hockey. I would like them to just keep removing players from the field. So every 10 minutes you have one fewer players. I'm sure in football when it is 3 on 3, someone will score. In hockey, they might just have to pull both goaltenders after it becomes 2-on-2.
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by Dark4Sorrow · 2006-03-20 14:08 · Score: 1

Actually, here are the facts: Auto racing is the number one live spectator sport in the United States. In 1984, soccer passed baseball as the most popular team sport in the United States. So, I guess soccer is the most popular sport in the World AND the United States. :)
Re:Soccer sucks! QWZX by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 19:46 · Score: 0

The point is defensive *balance*, not that any defense is bad. The defense and offense should be equally strong.
Equally strong? What does that actually mean?

Barefoot soccer by 2901 · 2006-03-20 04:20 · Score: 1

This could come horribly unstuck for Nike. You can play soccer barefoot. I assume that it is a slightly more dainty and skillful game: you cannot just lash out at the ball and expect your boots to protect your toes. Nevertheless it is a game so restricting the equippement used doesn't favour on team over another, it just leaves the players with more money to spend on beer afterwards.

There is quite a tradition of playing rugby barefoot. Perhaps letting the players talk via a website on whether to spend money on expensive equippement could end up transferring revenue from Nike to Coors.

Re:Barefoot soccer by Rude+Turnip · 2006-03-20 04:35 · Score: 1

"You can play soccer barefoot. I assume that it is a slightly more dainty and skillful game: you cannot just lash out at the ball and expect your boots to protect your toes."

Let's not romanticize barefoot soccer too much. My mom played it that way as a kid in Yugoslavia (when it was still a Titoist paradise) and always used to tell me how much her feet hurt afterwards. Hint: it wasn't played that way because of the greater finesse and skill needed...it's because they were too POOR to afford proper shoes for football.

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Re:Barefoot soccer by SangoDaze · 2006-03-20 06:42 · Score: 1

I was playing rugby in college when a Sri Lankan exchange student came running out onto the field. No problem, right, always room for one more person that loves the game. Then we looked down: no cleats, no shoes. We begged him, "Are you sure you want to do this?" It was bad enough the average guy out there had 100 pounds on him, but no shoes? I wish I could say that there was a happy ending to this, but it did not end well. Of course two practices later I blew out both my collarbones, so what do I know.

The funny things is that, as terrible as this episode was, it was still less troubling than our other idea: coed rugby. Just trust me on this one; there is no way that it works out well for anybody.
Re:Barefoot soccer by babyrat · 2006-03-20 08:26 · Score: 1

There is quite a tradition of playing rugby barefoot. Perhaps letting the players talk via a website on whether to spend money on expensive equippement could end up transferring revenue from Nike to Coors.

Does any Soccer or Rugby player actually drink Coors?

Google getting into bed with Nike.... by smaerd · 2006-03-20 04:22 · Score: 5, Funny

...this could be bad... nay.. this could be the worst. thing. ever.

Commericials will be changed forever.

[OPENING SHOT. CAMERA PANS OVER GREYING, SLIGHTLY ROTUND GENTLEMAN CALMLY TYPING AT HIS COMPUTER. HE IS SITTING AT HIS DESK, IN A SUNLIT HOME OFFICE. IT IS EARLY MORNING AND THE EXTERIOR SHOWS WAVES CALMY IMPACTING AGAINST THE SURF]

[VOICEOVER (John Lithgow)] : Meet David Random. Today David will walk a total of twenty-five feet. But just because he'll barely get out of his chair doesn't mean he won't be active. David will correspond with thousands of people, write seven hundred lines of code, recompile his kernel, download five Styx CDs, and write a major post in his blog. All the while, he won't miss a second of the Brazil-Argentina Futbol game. How will he do this? David utilizes the power of Google/Nike.

[THE MAN LEANS BACK IN HIS OFFICE CHAIR, PUTTING HIS HANDS OVER HIS HEAD AND SMILING]

[VOICEOVER] : With Google/Nike, you'll never need to visit more than one website... that would be like needlessly running around... [THE MAN LEANS BACK TOO FAR, FALLING TO THE GROUND IN AN EXPLOSION OF PAPER, COFFEE, AND OFFICE SUPPLIES]

[VOICEOVER] : ...we wouldn't want you to strain yourself.

[FADE TO BLACK, SHOWING THE GOOGLE/NIKE LOGO AND THE SLOGON : "Google/Nike, we own you."]

[WOMANS VOICE] : David? You ok?

Re:Google getting into bed with Nike.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 12:56 · Score: 0

[WOMANS VOICE] : David? You ok?
Cut this line out. Otherwise we'll know it's too good to be true.

Slashdot.... by m93 · 2006-03-20 04:27 · Score: 1

News for Jocks. Stuff that doesn't matter.

Re:Slashdot.... by Ireneo+Funes · 2006-03-20 05:49 · Score: 1

I am a football (the one you actually play with your feet) fan.
Matter of fact, I am a football player. A very good one, actually.

I'm sorry that in the US of A young people can only fall under the 2 accepted categories of jocks and nerds, but it doesn't work that way in the outside world.

So I'll just shut down my ubuntu box, get my football equipment ready and go play. Damn, it's a good day.

--
Three tings I hate about stars: -Wars -Treks -Gates

dumb US idiots kissing brazilian but as always by computadorka · 2006-03-20 04:28 · Score: -1, Flamebait

USNADS are wannabe brazilians US Sawker sucks and always will as long as they try to kiss brazil's arse and fat arses play American football.

Where's the nerd stuff? by Jugalator · 2006-03-20 04:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Would this have been news for nerds if it didn't have Google doing behind the scenes work?

Is Google still geeky enough for it to "matter" for us, even when their products and services doesn't mean anything at all besides that their servers are rolling?

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!

Joga = Boobs by horsie · 2006-03-20 04:30 · Score: 1

And in Tagalog, Joga is slang for boobs.

Re:Joga = Boobs by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 07:25 · Score: 0

"Joga" is also Portuguese for "Play," probably what they were really going for when they picked joga.com.

Shake'n'Bake Social Network by AndroidCat · 2006-03-20 04:42 · Score: 2, Funny

It sounds like something Hannibal Lector would be a member of.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Where's McAfee when you need them? by jesterpilot · 2006-03-20 04:46 · Score: 1

Whenever i recieve an invitation for a social-networking site, i send an email: "Take care, you're computer is infected. Scan it now, or install Linux to get rid of it for ever."

Most people do know however, i hate football more than television or microsoft. I might escape this time.

--
Trust me, I work for the government.

YUO FAIL IT by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 04:58 · Score: -1, Flamebait

And building is resound as fitting bombsheel hit

Stef! by Short+Circuit · 2006-03-20 05:00 · Score: 1

Stef! Log off Slashdot before you freak out your coworkers again.

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)

Definition by haggisbrain · 2006-03-20 05:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Joga means "play" in Portuguese.

;You FAIL it by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 05:09 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Charn3l House.

For the last time... by Savage-Rabbit · 2006-03-20 05:13 · Score: 1

Soccer:
Eh? Never heard of it. (This not ignorance on my part, it is a health issue, apparently there are places in the UK where you can get beaten to a bloody pulp for even uttering that word).

Football:
A game that is usually played on a rectangular grass field with a goal at each end using a round leather ball. Football involves two teams of eleven players of whom one player in each team is the goalkeeper. The goalkeepers are the only two players on the field allowed to touch the ball with their hands. The object of the game is for the attacking players of your team (strikers and midfielders) to convey the ball accross the field, past the opposing team's defense (midfielders and defenders), past their goalkeeper and into the opposing team's goal. Your players are only allowed to use their feet to accomplish this although it is also acceptable to bounce the ball off of the chest the hips or hit it with one's head just so long as one does not touch it with one's hands. Successfully landing the ball in the opposing team's goal earns your team one point. IMPORTANT: At no time whatsoever are is any player, goalkeepers included, allowed to pick the ball up and run accross the playing field carrying it in his arms like a sissy.

END_OF_DISCUSSION

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow

Re:For the last time... by 91degrees · 2006-03-20 05:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

This not ignorance on my part, it is a health issue, apparently there are places in the UK where you can get beaten to a bloody pulp for even uttering that word

Yeah, but you'll get beaten up there for whatever pretext they can come up with.

I know rugby fans who insist on making the distinction between Association football and Rugby football.

What an odd name for the website by jomagam · 2006-03-20 05:22 · Score: 1

"Joga" is how yoga is spelled in many languages.

mmm, a new wave? by j3one · 2006-03-20 05:34 · Score: 0, Redundant

I can see how google could use its network to sort of create a global log in for a large network of social sites. Now we just have to watch who google gets in bed with...

Hmmm, lol, some interesting links!
- google + orkut
- google js
- is that what that means?
- LOL

here's how i imagine this works... by utexaspunk · 2006-03-20 05:35 · Score: 1

Google uses all the marketing and relationship data that Brazilians have freely entered into Orkut- they locate the people who represent the target demographic (probably young, middle-class, males who are into soccer) and who have lots of connections on Orkut. Offer up invites and maybe a few free goodies to those key people, and suddenly you have "exclusive" network. Funny how you can make people feel privileged to give you their money...

ME AM BRASIL by MickoZ · 2006-03-20 05:37 · Score: 0, Flamebait

NIKE AND GOOGLE AM SHOOT SCORE GOOGOOOGOALLLLLLLLLLLL!

PS. Since slashdot as an anti-lameness filter, it doesn't allow 100% pure brasil post. I encountered error #9 Ronaldhino "Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!" "Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING."

PSS. It always amaze me how some people really take CAPS so seriously, like it was so much irritating.

PSSS. On joga.com they even put a style to make it BRASIL STYLE, look for the "PLAY BEAUTIFUL" box. ;-)

PSSSS. All those PSs are not a way to pass thru the lameness filter.

I'm sure someone beat me to it.,.. by Oldschoolwax · 2006-03-20 05:51 · Score: 0

You know, the one where the Chinese sweat shop labour kids can use Google China to talk to.... uh...nevermind.

Football? by cheaphomemadeacid · 2006-03-20 05:58 · Score: 0

What the hell is an article about football doing on slashdot? I bet it made atleast 50% of the /. crowd feel a chill going down their spine...

sheep by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 06:39 · Score: 0

Can you say monkey on a stick?

Re:Superb marketing! - NO "gsports.com" by Red+Flayer · 2006-03-20 06:44 · Score: 1

G-Spots has already been claimed as the working title for Google's marital aide service.

I mean, we wouldn't want any confusion between that and G-Sports, would we?

Also, note that this service does not have Americans as its primary target market... so why use the English word "sport"? How about G-Deportes?

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai

Soccer isnt the most popular sport by Tweekster · 2006-03-20 06:48 · Score: 1

in the world... In actual particapants, volleyball is about three times the size. and in viewership: formula one racing. http://www.johann-sandra.com/popular.htm here for more info

--
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis

Re:Soccer isnt the most popular sport by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 07:42 · Score: 0

Crap...

No ball either by Gorimek · 2006-03-20 07:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Also, real football is played with the feet kicking a ball shaped ball, while American football is played with the hands throwing an inflated egg shaped... thing.

One rumor I heard is that it's called football, since the "ball" is one foot long.

Of course, real balls don't have length, they have diameter.

Re:No ball either by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 09:34 · Score: 0

> Of course, real balls don't have length, they have diameter.

Girthy!

This is slashdot, why are we discussing balls and not BREASTS!
Re:No ball either by e.colli · 2006-03-20 14:32 · Score: 1

American football is played with the hands throwing an inflated egg shaped... thing.

Why troll? It's funny...

Cool comparison site by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 07:31 · Score: 0

I found this cool comparison site to compare different types of social network sites: http://www.comparehangouts.com/

Someone that has an invite to either Joga or Orkut should post a review on there.

Re:Cool comparison site by PlainBlack · 2006-03-20 09:31 · Score: 1

I agree that this site is perfect for comparing these sorts of sites, but then I probably should, my company created it. =)

Joga and the Orkut phenomenon in Brazil by serginho · 2006-03-20 07:32 · Score: 1

For those wondering about the name, "jogar" means to play. I wonder why they chose Portuguese, though. In Spanish, ti would be "Jugar".

And just to give you a dimension of the Orkut phenomenon here. It had in February some 22 billion page views. The largest portal had something like 1.5 billion page views in the same period. Orkut here is *really* huge.

The funny thing is, as far as I know, they don't make one dime from Orkut. Anyway, I guess it is far easier to make a deal with Nike in a World Cup year than trying to find a way to make money from this huge web property that is Orkut.

PS: I'm from Brazil. And yes, we'll win the World Cup.

Curious by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 08:07 · Score: 0

It's curious how the big sports in the US barely succeed in the rest of the world (only basketball has a big audience here in Europe, and no one cares about American Football, Baseball or Hockey), yet the most popular sport doesn't catch up there.

Re:Curious by belg4mit · 2006-03-20 12:47 · Score: 1

Hockey is not a major sport everywhere in the US, and it's more of a Canadian thing than American.
As for baseball, well it's supposedly pretty damn big in the Carribean and Latin America.

See Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey, which points out that you have to have ice to play.

--
Were that I say, pancakes?

Joga invite by jroysdon · 2006-03-20 08:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

I tried to sign in at the site and get the same thing you get at Orkut:
"Joga is unique, because it's an organically growing network of trusted friends. It is one of a kind network that focuses solely on a common interest around the game of soccer. Joga will help you connect to people who share the same passion for the game and also access exclusive content around athlete profiles, video clips and photos.

If you know someone who is a Joga member, he or she can invite you to join as well. If you don't know a Joga member, you will still be able to join the network by visiting www.joga.com.

We look forward to having you join us in the Joga community."

Uhm, ok, so I have to find someone who is on Orkut/Joga to even get into the community? But how can I find someone if I can't get into the community to do a search?

Then I recall that Gmail account invites were for sale on eBay, and sure enough, you can get Orkut on eBay. It's only a matter of time before Joga account invites are available on eBay.

Anyway, if you have a Joga account, I'd love an invite. My first dot last name @ google.com.

NASCAR & Golf by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 08:37 · Score: 0

Isn't NASCAR a sport? What about golf? Why are these sports being ignored?

another SN by Google? by julioody · 2006-03-20 08:45 · Score: 1

Really, what expertise?

If they mean the same "good work" Google did with Orkut, than everybody's in for trouble. Seeing Google as _the_ high quality web development company, one can't conceive they bought and kept a product in such a bad shape as that.

Forgive me if I guess wrong, but I think Orkut has been around for 4 years or so, right? I still get silly error messages all the time (ask an user if he hasn't seen the "Bad, bad server, no donut for you" at least 10 times in his life), either when you try to upload a picture, write a scrap, or do any sort of interaction. It's the same average I used to get when the product was launched, and it didn't belong to Google. Meaning they bought it for some reason that's not making good use of it.

Second, success of Orkut in Brazil had nothing to do with soccer (of course, the text didn't mention that as the reason, but suggests correlation). Orkut was the first social network that became widely known over there. That's all. Word of mouth took care of the rest.

this is funny by motoras · 2006-03-20 09:19 · Score: 1

One week ago I launched www.zero-zero.info with (somehow)the same goal in mind. We have support for news blogs, story, and we also have build in support for image and video(despite we did not make it public yet) Our site is running drupal/mysql and was made in my spare time by me and my cousin. Should I just close now my site? :-(

What is truly interesting about Joga by Sentri · 2006-03-20 10:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

The site represents a shift in they way people think about how to attract people to sites.

How many of you will go to a site because of a tv advertisement? Probably quite a few, given my audience. Compare that number though to the amount of people who would join a website/visit a website after recieving an invitation from someone you know. Many more.

It works on two levels:

1. We trust our friends/acquaintances more than other forms of advertising, word of mouth advertising, viral advertising, virulent memes all work on us because of this. Google has formalised a way of doing this with the invitation system.

2. When you go to a website you are used to being able to view content and so on for free. This is especially true with community sites, because the content is not being created by the service provider. However, by removing this ease of access an illusion of exclusivity is created, making us want it more. Of course the volume of people is actually as high, if not higher, than it would be if you can sign up for nothing.

This exclusivity/invitiation system is an awesome way of getting a huge user base of people who are probably actually interested in your service (as opposed to randoms off slashdot, for example)

--
Can't we all just get along

What the rest of the world calls it by Gorimek · 2006-03-20 10:45 · Score: 1

"American Football".

Not soccer... by fbg111 · 2006-03-20 11:39 · Score: 2, Informative

I hope the jogo.com that I viewed was just the American version, since it refers to football/futbol/The Beautiful Game as 'soccer'. It's only known by that name in America (where I'm viewing from), so hopefully they have internationalized versions that correctly name the game. Otherwise, they'll get a lot of t'd off anti-fans from all the other countries in the world...

--
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams

Play Beautiful by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2006-03-20 11:59 · Score: 1

So Nike is tying into Brazil and the Samba Soccer - Beautiful Game style of play, that's cool. Maybe Addidas will start a site glorifying the German Smashmouth - Thugball style of play. Former German keeper Harold Schumacher could be featured with footage of his 1982 coma-inducing whack of French substitute Battiston.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.

open source social networking? by samantha · 2006-03-20 18:36 · Score: 1

It seem to me that general social networking as a softwarce commodity could be used by a lot of different products. Anyone know if such a thing is being done expressly with the goal of being pluggable into other projects?

Not off-topic by Derkec · 2006-03-20 18:43 · Score: 1

So today, I don't have mod points and this didn't come up for meta-mod. Lovely. Just want to second that this is not off topic in any way.

Nike launched an ad saying 'something was coming' this is the something.

Folk you by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-20 22:57 · Score: 0

Congratulations - you managed to squeeze the word Folks 5 times into that small post. Such actions can only be commended.

Slashdot Mirror

Nike and Google launch Joga.com

216 comments