Comments for Intelligent Design

Comment on The Problem with Soccer by Tim

Tim — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:06:17 +0000

Ha! According to your comment info, Daniel, the browser sniff Wordpress plugin detects Safari on iPad as “Netscape Navigator.”

…unless you truly are using Netscape Navigator…

Comment on The Problem with Soccer by Daniel Peckham

Daniel Peckham — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:58:25 +0000

I agree with Tim about the diving but also with Simon about the flow of the game, and the incredible athleticism that is required to play for so long without stopping. That to me is the most impressive thing about soccer/futbol players.

Comment on The Problem with Soccer by Tim

Tim — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:52:00 +0000

Simon – that’s some good insights on the advantages vs consequences. Something’s got to change with that.

If they teach you how to dive in soccer camps then the sport is doomed to dive for the foreseeable future.

Comment on The Problem with Soccer by Simon

Simon — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:07:09 +0000

I’m both a Hockey and Soccer fan and player. I agree with you that diving is totally uncool and unfair and should be punished by the ref.

It even goes so far that in soccer training camps you learn how to dive! The advantage of getting rewarded a free kick is just too tempting. And the consequences if you get caught diving are pretty small, unless you fake it in the 16m area.

I would love to see soccer “cleansed” of diving, but I don’t think video replays are the answer. What I love about soccer is that you have a lot of games where you will play for 10-20minutes without a pause, or at least only very short ones – compare that to hockey, basketball, football or almost any other american sport! I love watching soccer because of the “flow”.

The thing that has to change is the mentality of the soccer players. In hockey training you are not trained to dive. Your trained to get up and play. But changing the mentality of soccer players is going to take for ever.

Comment on The Problem with Soccer by Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:14:21 +0000

I like the music in the second video better.

All I got out of this post was that you like rap.

Comment on The Problem with Soccer by Lem

Lem — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:42:03 +0000

It seems to be something that’s just part of the game. I was watching the highlights of the World Cup Finals, and the commentators were saying on one replay where a guy was on a breakaway fought through a trip to take a shot and missed, but if he just fell down he would have gotten a free kick! It’s as if the refs either let you play through a foul and not call it, or they will call it if you choose to fall. It’s just seems silly to give the player the choice whether or not to get a call rather than the ref being completely objective about it. So dumb.

Most of these dives would be prevented if the game allowed video replays and penalizing intentional dives. But nope, they want to keep the “purity” of the game, so instead they just get a bunch of players who exploit the system, making for a less pure game in my opinion.

Also, I heard that the guy who kicked his opponent in the chest only got a yellow card because they didn’t want to mess with the balance of the game by kicking him out instantly. What is THAT?!

Comment on Google Voice Fluid Icon by Jose Trigueros

Jose Trigueros — Sun, 02 May 2010 05:45:36 +0000

That is an awesome icon, thanks for the contribution. I’ll be using it for Prism in Ubuntu :D

Comment on Semifinals: Sharks v Red Wings by Tim

Tim — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:54:28 +0000

Troll!

Comment on Semifinals: Sharks v Red Wings by Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:42:04 +0000

Go Ducks!

Comment on Semifinals: Sharks v Red Wings by Lem

Lem — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:43:02 +0000

A few things that the Red Wings have over the Avalanche that could cause problems for the Sharks:

1) Seasoned veterans: These guys know what it takes to make it far into the playoffs, many of them are still on the team that won the Stanley Cup two years ago. The Avs were a bunch of kids who were just excited to even be in the running for the Stanley Cup. But no one truly thought that they could best the Sharks in a best-of-7 series because they just didn’t have the experience, or the skill to match even. This leads to two more things like…

2) A formidable offense: The Avs’ offense were outplayed by the Sharks defense for the majority of the Quarterfinal series because a couple of their top offensive players were out of the lineup due to injuries. This will not be so with the Red Wings! Though wearied, players like Datsyuk and Zetterberg can still put the puck in the net. The other thing is the…

3) Red Wings defense: Lidstrom as the anchor of their D makes it that much more solid compared to the Avs. Even with the barrage of shots by the Sharks’ offense in the Quarterfinals, I don’t think the Red Wings will allow nearly that many make it to their net.

All in all, the Red Wings are much better team than the Avs and it will be a hard-fought series. True the Red Wings aren’t nearly what they used to be two years ago (they pretty much owned the playoffs then). Losing to the Penguins in Game 7 for the Stanley Cup, only making it Seed 5 in the playoffs this year, and even going all the way to Game 7 against the Coyotes, they still have the knowledge, skill, talent, and even class to be successful in the playoffs.

The great thing is that the Sharks have seemed to have learned how to really fight for their wins now! The nice thing about the Avs’ surprising wins in Game 1 and 3 is that it kept the Sharks on their toes instead of on their heels, and Anderson made them work hard to get those winning goals in Game 2, 4, and 6 (5 was no contest). The Sharks are rested, but, hopefully, still on edge to bring their game tomorrow.

Go Sharks!

Comment on Game 3’s Fluke Goal by Tim

Tim — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 02:12:58 +0000

Pucky daddy, of Yahoo Sports, a much smarter hockey nut than I, also wrote something similar in his article, "Eulogy: Remembering the 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche":

In that [shot count difference] context, you need to be extremely lucky to win, and Colorado was: Their two winning goals in the series went in off of Sharks' defensemen. It wasn't "heart"; it wasn't "chemistry"; it wasn't "nothing to lose" or "something to prove." It was a puck off Rob Blake's skate and Dan Boyle shooting the puck into his own net that gave the Avs their wins.

Comment on Game 3’s Fluke Goal by Lem

Lem — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:15:43 +0000

Hm, I don’t know about that. Just because the Sharks lost the game doesn’t mean that the Avs should be merited with a well-deserved win. If you watched the game, you would have seen that the Avs were pretty pathetic as a team. Anderson was legendary in net – he definitely deserved winning that game – but it really was an individual’s effort and not a team’s.

But in the end, a loss is a loss and a win is a win. Fortunately for the Avs, their wins have come off very bad breaks for the Sharks – VERY bad breaks. And so continues the rants of angst-filled fans.

Comment on Game 3’s Fluke Goal by Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:38:48 +0000

You can’t argue that you lost a game 0-1 to overtime and it was all luck. If the Sharks dominated for 60 minutes like you said they did, they should have scored. Avalanche deserved to win just as much as the Sharks going into OT.

Still, just about the worst way to lose a game.

Comment on Game 3’s Fluke Goal by Lem

Lem — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:23:45 +0000

Yeah, it’s not a big deal. The Sharks played really well, and the Avs have yet to prove they can win a game without some kind of fluke going their way. Anderson, however, is definitely NOT a fluke. That guy is a beast netminder.

Comment on The New Version of Photoshop and a New Icon! by Navarr

Navarr — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 08:01:32 +0000

I don’t know, i think there is a certain elegance to it. A certain simplicity. I like the way it looks on Windows machines.