Sorry, around here (US) we tend to ignorantly brush over the British/English distinction.
> The funny part is, the English media slag off the German team something rotten, yet don't > understand why the Scottish media is negative about the English team. It's rivalry, you idiots!
I have to say, though, that as the inventors of fair play, the British (media at least) have a frightfully poor capacity for objectivity, especially when it comes to the Germans. They frequently take attacks well beyond just technical analysis and into the realm of ad hominem attacks and xenophobic characterisation. You'd think that in the bigger picture it would even out with the German media doing the same thing, but that's not true. I've rarely seen just plain nasty things written about the English in German papers (even Bild, which are the dregs of German rags). I'm afraid this is a very unilateral animosity.
> How much revenue does the fandom of this "#2 played team sport" generate?
Oh, about $4 billion worth of Enron playmoney. Or WorldCom. Or Xerox. How much would YOU like it to generate?
Re:And then there was reality
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
> what was with them knocking the ball back to their own goalie like 5 times in a row?
They were most likely trying to thin out the midfield by frustrating them and making them come after the ball. You have to view this game from the German perspective: the came in expecting to be totally outplayed, and with the full knowledge that they had no Ronaldos and Rivaldos. As the saying goes, if life hands you a lemon, you make lemonade. If you have a team weak in attack, you concentrate on its strenghts. I mean, for crying out loud, what exactly was everyone expecting Germany to do? Walk onto the field, take a look at the Brazilian team, and say "ok, you win, let's not bother playing?"
For that matter, all that rubbish about shattering South Korea's dreams. Again, what were the Germans supposed to do? Come in and say "well, we were planning on kicking the ball around a bit and having a go at a game, but we didn't realize that you have a DREAM, so in that case, let's forget the whole thing, you win, and congratulations."
Guys, let's face it, hardly anybody ever cheered Germany over the last three quarters of a century, save for the Germans themselves (and some Middle Eastern countries, oddly), yet they've managed to do quite nicely anyway, thank you very much. Nobody loves them much, but they don't expect it either. Brazil, OTOH, start crying and assuming the foetal position as soon as the home country stops sending tapes of cheering people in the streets.
> In short, when you hear or read somebody say that "Germans suck raw ass", that's a solid > indication that the speaker knows next to nothing about soccer.
Or is British. They go out of their way to put down the Germans, deservedly or not. Their rags were yet again innundated with "boring German football" cliches over the last few weeks, yet I'll be damned if there's any difference between the styles of the English and German teams. In fact, with very few exceptions, Europeans in general pretty much play the same style of football. So if Germany sucked so bad, England did even more so, 'cause they went home earlier.
> Rubbish - Brazil didn't struggle against England
No, not against England, but against Belgium they sure did.
I'm about sick of this "beautiful game" crap
on
World Cup Final
·
· Score: 2
Football basically represents a war in game form. What determines the final outcome is a lot more than just who is attacking more often and faster. Part of the beauty is the strategy, not unlike a game of chess. If you want to see fancy shots and passes, maybe you should buy some Globetrotters tapes. Many people find it much more fascinating when a less favored team makes the most of its assets, finds some extra reserves and drive, and wins against the odds. Then again, there are also many that cheer on the playground bully as the beats up the smaller kids. Whatever rocks your boat. But cheering on Brazil in today's game pretty much falls in the latter category.
> I really hate the fact that the Germans got > such an easy run to the final.
Yeah, because Cameroon and South Korea were such pushovers. Even the Saudis, if they really sucked so badly, how come none of the others in the group came even close to that 8:0 spanking? Face it, that 5:0 fluke was a gift from the gods, which not even Brazil managed to equal today. If any team beats Germany 5:0, you know Germany must be having a collective Ronaldo moment (ca. 1998).
Both of you, which game did you watch? Germany SUCKED in the second half. The first half was their great one, the ball spending most of the time in the Brazilian half, often on its way towards goal. They played absolutely great attacking football in the first half. If they could have maintained the energy in the second half, the end could have been very different.
Oh please, a large hockey goalie can pretty much cover the entire width of the goal up with his body and the stick. If Kahn played hockey, he could widen himself to wrap entirely around the puny hockey goal.
Well, as a fellow German, take heart. At least you got a live ABC feed (it seems). Our affiliate in Chattanooga preferred to show tight ass infomercials instead, all morning long. While I enjoy a nice tight female ass in spandex as much as the next guy on most days, today wasn't the day for that. I was frothing at the mouth. Luckily Univision came through. You'd just think Spanish could come up with a shorter word for ball--even German managed to, and God knows we're not monosyllabic.
> I read the papers from England, Italy and Spain and they ALL agree on that one.
Well, gee, the press of three countries famous for their love of Germany and German football. No offense, but the only good thing about Germany you'll ever read in an English rag is when it gets blown up by some terrorist nuke, and even that will merely be a "good riddance."
Besides, what counts is what the ref sees. You want unfair hand balls? How about Maradona's Hand Of God? Or how about even the US in the previous game?
> American coverage of International sporting events is emarrassing and offensive.
Amen. Our ABC affiliate preferred to sell the 6am-12am block to a set of infomercials for tighter asses. So even though my TiVo thought it was showing me the World Cup at 7am, I had instead the enraging pleasure of watching spandexed women's asses. Only a call to the affiliate revealed the information that this game will only be seen tape-delayed at 12:30pm. The only thing that saved the individual's life at the other end of the line was the distance separation. For a few hours there I genuinely cursed living in this football-forsaking country.
> Communism/socialism are state ownership of all property.
That's exactly what I said, but you claimed that about fascism.
A major difference between communism and fascism is that while the former had a well formalized doctrine (e.g. Marx's writings), the latter didn't. While we can judge communist ideology by reading its writings AND by observing its implementations, fascism is really only defined by its implementations. There is no The Fascist Manifest to draw upon (unless you consider Mein Kampf and Goebbels' ramblings that), only the fascist reality under Nazi rule. Given that, you have to conclude that the heart of fascist ideology is social darwinism (aided by personal biases), rather than any economic considerations. Control of the economy was more of a consequence of opportunity rather than doctrine. Of course, since expansion was central to Nazi doctrine (Lebensraum), and this required military build-up and war, which in turn required huge sums of money and industrial production, you could argue that control and redirection of the economy towards these goals was vital to Nazi doctrine as well. But I would still consider it more a consequence than a goal. Nazis weren't at all concerned with redestribution of wealth and the creation of an egalitarian society. In fact, they were quite happy with the concentration of wealth in the hands of a devoted few.
> IIRC Fascism is state control of private property
Wrong, that's communism. Faschism is concerned with nationalism and xenophobia, the belief in the superiority of certain races over others, etc. It's focused on social order issues rather than economic ones. For example, Germany under Nazi rule was mostly a market economy, with the exception that party officials had lots of latitude in intervening in individual companies. After all, if you wield absolute power, laws of commerce don't mean all that much. You can always "expose" the proprietors as Jews if they don't give you your piece of the pie.
First, they were giving away hardware below cost. Now, they're giving away more hardware even more below cost. But I guess, in the grand old tradition of dot-coms, they'll eventually make it up in volume.
> the hard line taken by GNU [gnu.org], the FSF [fsf.org], and people like RMS and ESR, has > reminded more than one person of the fascism practiced half a century ago in Germany
Even as a jokster you should learn the difference between fascism and communism. Faschism is in no ideological way concerned with the redestribution of wealth; that is the prerogative of communism. Faschism is what Mr. Ashcroft and his Bible buddies practice.
> If the 2nd movie uses tweening, and the result is better looking than the timed cameras used in > the first, I will be impressed again.
Uh, how exactly can an interpolated, computer generated image of a human be better looking than an actual photograph, which is what M1 used? It might buy you more flexibility and more otherwise impossible scenes, but it's certainly not going to be looking more realistic than the real thing.
They'll have to do better than Series 2 to get me to buy another unit. They're not offering any significant new capabilities to warrant an upgrade. What would make me run out and buy other unit(s) would be the ability to extract video to SVCD or DVD, and the abilitiy to watch shows on other TiVos on my home network. The new Replay looks mighty good, except for the price.
> I don't think it's "unreasonable" to care about these things.
We're not talking in absolute terms here. Of course a DVD is better, no argument there. We're talking about the acceptable quality level of a medium that can be cheaply written in the home TODAY. As soon as DVD-R comes down close to the price level of CD-R, I'll be chucking all SVCD creation software. But for now, to create a disc that can play in the vast majority of DVD players for 20 cents in a $60 burner, SVCD can't be beat.
The Japanse maglev trains have always been flashy show pieces, out to establish new records and such, but have never been ready for production. Yes, they hold the fastest land record, but they've had a slew of technical problems, in addition to a catastrophic fire a few years back. On the other hand, the Transrapid has been technologically ready for prime time for years. You've been able to take public rides on it for a long time. The Japanese track is much bulkier and even more expensive per km, and as the Transrapid seems to be failing on the cost of the track, I can't see how the Japanese could succeed--unless it simply becomes a matter of "beating the Germans", cost be damned.
> The main problem of the system lies in the fact that at speeds above 300km/hr the magnetic system > creates a drag of its own
This "problem" is inherent in any electric motor, and that hasn't held back extremely high RPM motors. The problems with the Transrapid aren't technical but rather economic. It is absolutely crucial for Thyssen to refine the track technology and make it cheaper and more lightweight to produce. If they could halve the cost of track, they could be in business. But unfortunately it seems that a fair bit of self-interest is in the way there, since they seem to be expecting to make a killing on building tracks for customers. They got really pissed when China insisted that tracks be produced locally, using a lot more concrete and a lot less steel than planned to bring costs down. Thyssen was hoping to be selling China a crapload of steel on top of the Transrapid. It really seems to be a case of conflicting self-interests; they want to sell the Transrapid really badly, but they're also in the steel business.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm afraid the standard journalism unit of measure is the length of a football field. How many football fields would that be?
> More specifically, English media.
Sorry, around here (US) we tend to ignorantly brush over the British/English distinction.
> The funny part is, the English media slag off the German team something rotten, yet don't
> understand why the Scottish media is negative about the English team. It's rivalry, you idiots!
I have to say, though, that as the inventors of fair play, the British (media at least) have a frightfully poor capacity for objectivity, especially when it comes to the Germans. They frequently take attacks well beyond just technical analysis and into the realm of ad hominem attacks and xenophobic characterisation. You'd think that in the bigger picture it would even out with the German media doing the same thing, but that's not true. I've rarely seen just plain nasty things written about the English in German papers (even Bild, which are the dregs of German rags). I'm afraid this is a very unilateral animosity.
> How much revenue does the fandom of this "#2 played team sport" generate?
Oh, about $4 billion worth of Enron playmoney. Or WorldCom. Or Xerox. How much would YOU like it to generate?
> what was with them knocking the ball back to their own goalie like 5 times in a row?
They were most likely trying to thin out the midfield by frustrating them and making them come after the ball. You have to view this game from the German perspective: the came in expecting to be totally outplayed, and with the full knowledge that they had no Ronaldos and Rivaldos. As the saying goes, if life hands you a lemon, you make lemonade. If you have a team weak in attack, you concentrate on its strenghts. I mean, for crying out loud, what exactly was everyone expecting Germany to do? Walk onto the field, take a look at the Brazilian team, and say "ok, you win, let's not bother playing?"
For that matter, all that rubbish about shattering South Korea's dreams. Again, what were the Germans supposed to do? Come in and say "well, we were planning on kicking the ball around a bit and having a go at a game, but we didn't realize that you have a DREAM, so in that case, let's forget the whole thing, you win, and congratulations."
Guys, let's face it, hardly anybody ever cheered Germany over the last three quarters of a century, save for the Germans themselves (and some Middle Eastern countries, oddly), yet they've managed to do quite nicely anyway, thank you very much. Nobody loves them much, but they don't expect it either. Brazil, OTOH, start crying and assuming the foetal position as soon as the home country stops sending tapes of cheering people in the streets.
> In short, when you hear or read somebody say that "Germans suck raw ass", that's a solid
> indication that the speaker knows next to nothing about soccer.
Or is British. They go out of their way to put down the Germans, deservedly or not. Their rags were yet again innundated with "boring German football" cliches over the last few weeks, yet I'll be damned if there's any difference between the styles of the English and German teams. In fact, with very few exceptions, Europeans in general pretty much play the same style of football. So if Germany sucked so bad, England did even more so, 'cause they went home earlier.
Turkey were absolutely splendid, once in a while it even looked like they could take Brazil. Well done, guys.
> Rubbish - Brazil didn't struggle against England
No, not against England, but against Belgium they sure did.
Football basically represents a war in game form. What determines the final outcome is a lot more than just who is attacking more often and faster. Part of the beauty is the strategy, not unlike a game of chess. If you want to see fancy shots and passes, maybe you should buy some Globetrotters tapes. Many people find it much more fascinating when a less favored team makes the most of its assets, finds some extra reserves and drive, and wins against the odds. Then again, there are also many that cheer on the playground bully as the beats up the smaller kids. Whatever rocks your boat. But cheering on Brazil in today's game pretty much falls in the latter category.
> I really hate the fact that the Germans got
> such an easy run to the final.
Yeah, because Cameroon and South Korea were such pushovers. Even the Saudis, if they really sucked so badly, how come none of the others in the group came even close to that 8:0 spanking? Face it, that 5:0 fluke was a gift from the gods, which not even Brazil managed to equal today. If any team beats Germany 5:0, you know Germany must be having a collective Ronaldo moment (ca. 1998).
Both of you, which game did you watch? Germany SUCKED in the second half. The first half was their great one, the ball spending most of the time in the Brazilian half, often on its way towards goal. They played absolutely great attacking football in the first half. If they could have maintained the energy in the second half, the end could have been very different.
Oh please, a large hockey goalie can pretty much cover the entire width of the goal up with his body and the stick. If Kahn played hockey, he could widen himself to wrap entirely around the puny hockey goal.
Well, as a fellow German, take heart. At least you got a live ABC feed (it seems). Our affiliate in Chattanooga preferred to show tight ass infomercials instead, all morning long. While I enjoy a nice tight female ass in spandex as much as the next guy on most days, today wasn't the day for that. I was frothing at the mouth. Luckily Univision came through. You'd just think Spanish could come up with a shorter word for ball--even German managed to, and God knows we're not monosyllabic.
> I read the papers from England, Italy and Spain and they ALL agree on that one.
Well, gee, the press of three countries famous for their love of Germany and German football. No offense, but the only good thing about Germany you'll ever read in an English rag is when it gets blown up by some terrorist nuke, and even that will merely be a "good riddance."
Besides, what counts is what the ref sees. You want unfair hand balls? How about Maradona's Hand Of God? Or how about even the US in the previous game?
> American coverage of International sporting events is emarrassing and offensive.
Amen. Our ABC affiliate preferred to sell the 6am-12am block to a set of infomercials for tighter asses. So even though my TiVo thought it was showing me the World Cup at 7am, I had instead the enraging pleasure of watching spandexed women's asses. Only a call to the affiliate revealed the information that this game will only be seen tape-delayed at 12:30pm. The only thing that saved the individual's life at the other end of the line was the distance separation. For a few hours there I genuinely cursed living in this football-forsaking country.
> Communism/socialism are state ownership of all property.
That's exactly what I said, but you claimed that about fascism.
A major difference between communism and fascism is that while the former had a well formalized doctrine (e.g. Marx's writings), the latter didn't. While we can judge communist ideology by reading its writings AND by observing its implementations, fascism is really only defined by its implementations. There is no The Fascist Manifest to draw upon (unless you consider Mein Kampf and Goebbels' ramblings that), only the fascist reality under Nazi rule. Given that, you have to conclude that the heart of fascist ideology is social darwinism (aided by personal biases), rather than any economic considerations. Control of the economy was more of a consequence of opportunity rather than doctrine. Of course, since expansion was central to Nazi doctrine (Lebensraum), and this required military build-up and war, which in turn required huge sums of money and industrial production, you could argue that control and redirection of the economy towards these goals was vital to Nazi doctrine as well. But I would still consider it more a consequence than a goal. Nazis weren't at all concerned with redestribution of wealth and the creation of an egalitarian society. In fact, they were quite happy with the concentration of wealth in the hands of a devoted few.
> IIRC Fascism is state control of private property
Wrong, that's communism. Faschism is concerned with nationalism and xenophobia, the belief in the superiority of certain races over others, etc. It's focused on social order issues rather than economic ones. For example, Germany under Nazi rule was mostly a market economy, with the exception that party officials had lots of latitude in intervening in individual companies. After all, if you wield absolute power, laws of commerce don't mean all that much. You can always "expose" the proprietors as Jews if they don't give you your piece of the pie.
First, they were giving away hardware below cost. Now, they're giving away more hardware even more below cost. But I guess, in the grand old tradition of dot-coms, they'll eventually make it up in volume.
> the hard line taken by GNU [gnu.org], the FSF [fsf.org], and people like RMS and ESR, has
> reminded more than one person of the fascism practiced half a century ago in Germany
Even as a jokster you should learn the difference between fascism and communism. Faschism is in no ideological way concerned with the redestribution of wealth; that is the prerogative of communism. Faschism is what Mr. Ashcroft and his Bible buddies practice.
> If the 2nd movie uses tweening, and the result is better looking than the timed cameras used in
> the first, I will be impressed again.
Uh, how exactly can an interpolated, computer generated image of a human be better looking than an actual photograph, which is what M1 used? It might buy you more flexibility and more otherwise impossible scenes, but it's certainly not going to be looking more realistic than the real thing.
They'll have to do better than Series 2 to get me to buy another unit. They're not offering any significant new capabilities to warrant an upgrade. What would make me run out and buy other unit(s) would be the ability to extract video to SVCD or DVD, and the abilitiy to watch shows on other TiVos on my home network. The new Replay looks mighty good, except for the price.
> But somehow, and I don't honestly know how, they have been able to catch up to the
> frontrunners.
Caught up?! I don't think so. They're at the beginning of a very long incline leading up to a marketable product.
The Luftwaffe were painting many of their daytime planes that way, blue on the underside and various green shades above.
i nt.htm
h tml
http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/warpaint/warpa
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~fiveds/halloffame.
> I don't think it's "unreasonable" to care about these things.
We're not talking in absolute terms here. Of course a DVD is better, no argument there. We're talking about the acceptable quality level of a medium that can be cheaply written in the home TODAY. As soon as DVD-R comes down close to the price level of CD-R, I'll be chucking all SVCD creation software. But for now, to create a disc that can play in the vast majority of DVD players for 20 cents in a $60 burner, SVCD can't be beat.
The Japanse maglev trains have always been flashy show pieces, out to establish new records and such, but have never been ready for production. Yes, they hold the fastest land record, but they've had a slew of technical problems, in addition to a catastrophic fire a few years back. On the other hand, the Transrapid has been technologically ready for prime time for years. You've been able to take public rides on it for a long time. The Japanese track is much bulkier and even more expensive per km, and as the Transrapid seems to be failing on the cost of the track, I can't see how the Japanese could succeed--unless it simply becomes a matter of "beating the Germans", cost be damned.
> The main problem of the system lies in the fact that at speeds above 300km/hr the magnetic system
> creates a drag of its own
This "problem" is inherent in any electric motor, and that hasn't held back extremely high RPM motors. The problems with the Transrapid aren't technical but rather economic. It is absolutely crucial for Thyssen to refine the track technology and make it cheaper and more lightweight to produce. If they could halve the cost of track, they could be in business. But unfortunately it seems that a fair bit of self-interest is in the way there, since they seem to be expecting to make a killing on building tracks for customers. They got really pissed when China insisted that tracks be produced locally, using a lot more concrete and a lot less steel than planned to bring costs down. Thyssen was hoping to be selling China a crapload of steel on top of the Transrapid. It really seems to be a case of conflicting self-interests; they want to sell the Transrapid really badly, but they're also in the steel business.