Sunday, September 30, 2007
A Hopeless case
I have to say something about the benching of the goalkeeper. Earlier today on ESPN's sports reporters, the host of the show did his last word bit by comparing the benching of Solo to Tony Dungy replacing Manning with Sorgi. This despite Bob Ryan saying during the opening credits that little as he knew about soccer, when a team is completely outplayed and loses 4-0, more than the goalkeeper is at fault.
Keep it up Bob, you know a lot about soccer.
It is indicative of the US sports coverage obsession with tying the results of a game to a single person that a football match's outcome is tied to the goalie. They do this for football which is fairly rational- the QB has a lot to do with (in fact unless you are Dilfer playing for the Ravens, almost everything to do with) the offense.
They do it for baseball which is a bit more unfair but the starting pitcher has a lot to do with the defense- though I feel that the ERA is the absolute measure for a pitcher's success- not his win-loss numbers.
They do it for (ice) hockey- something I can't comment on since I have little familiarity with or interest in that sport.
And now they want to do it for real football.
Back off sports reporters. While a goalie's mistake occasionally costs a team a match, the match is won by the goal scorers. When a team scores no goals and loses, there is no point blaming the person in goal.
Especially when one of the goals is an own goal, it is pretty mean and ignorant to blame the goalie. If Brianna had a brilliant day after that in goal and not let in any other goals, the US would have still lost.
Coach Ryan's decision to bench Solo in favour of Scurry was definitely weird. But it most certainly didn't cost the US the match- they lost to a much better team with arguably the best forward in the game.
Marta- she won the match for Brazil, 'cos she scored goals- something the US didn't!
I have been following football for 30+ years and never have I seen the blame for multi-goal thrashing laid at the goalie's door.
Keep it up Bob, you know a lot about soccer.
It is indicative of the US sports coverage obsession with tying the results of a game to a single person that a football match's outcome is tied to the goalie. They do this for football which is fairly rational- the QB has a lot to do with (in fact unless you are Dilfer playing for the Ravens, almost everything to do with) the offense.
They do it for baseball which is a bit more unfair but the starting pitcher has a lot to do with the defense- though I feel that the ERA is the absolute measure for a pitcher's success- not his win-loss numbers.
They do it for (ice) hockey- something I can't comment on since I have little familiarity with or interest in that sport.
And now they want to do it for real football.
Back off sports reporters. While a goalie's mistake occasionally costs a team a match, the match is won by the goal scorers. When a team scores no goals and loses, there is no point blaming the person in goal.
Especially when one of the goals is an own goal, it is pretty mean and ignorant to blame the goalie. If Brianna had a brilliant day after that in goal and not let in any other goals, the US would have still lost.
Coach Ryan's decision to bench Solo in favour of Scurry was definitely weird. But it most certainly didn't cost the US the match- they lost to a much better team with arguably the best forward in the game.
Marta- she won the match for Brazil, 'cos she scored goals- something the US didn't!
I have been following football for 30+ years and never have I seen the blame for multi-goal thrashing laid at the goalie's door.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Linux
Just recently converted the PC downstairs that the wife and daughter use, to Ubuntu. No particular reason except perhaps, I don't need to fuss about viruses and stuff as much.
So far no complaints, they have used it mainly for a few websites (gmail, youtube, rediff). Sound worked fine but occasionally seems to die, necessitating a reboot.
But I don't think they could have just jumped in and started to use it after installation was complete.
I had the devil of a time trying to get wireless connectivity to work. I had 3 different adapters with me, a NetGear MA111 v2 which just was not supported, an eHome(Dlink under the covers) 2 dollar piece that was recognised but for which I couldn't get NDISWrapper to work, and a relatively new TrendNet which wasn't recognised period. Which was unfortunate because according the numerous websites I visited, this one actually had worked.
Finally I got one of my friends to return an old no-name adapter that I had lent him and surprise, surprise that worked native without the hassle of NDISwrapper.
Once I had connectivity, I still ran into some issues with firefox plugins. But I think I'd have had the same with IE on Windows- I'd have had to install Real Player even over there. But the media player plugin was an additional hassle that I'd not have had on Windows/IE.
Getting it to work with Raaga was not easy and I still can't navigate between songs or skip the annoying Citibank ad which goes "Do you have loved ones in India..."
Shockwave doesn't work, this I discovered after spending ages trying to get flash to work without realising that the site was actually using shockwave.
Most websites seem to work fine. I can't watch some embedded video, like the US Open's website.
I haven't figured out how to make it suspend and revive it- if I use the suspend option it refuses to wake up and I have to switch it off and on.
I think if I had go a new brand-name wireless adapter, I wouldn't have had a problem. My friend said he just plugged in a stick he found in a bin at the Walmart and it worked straightaway.
I haven't seen if it works with my old web-cam. I don't have an iPod but do have an MP3 player that I should test out.
As to stability- the PC had run XP-home for almost 6 years without a single BSOD, so that will be hard to beat!
In conclusion, can a non-techie person (like the missus) buy one of the new Dell/Ubuntu PC's bring it home and start working? Yes, if they have firefox exposure like she has. And somebody spends a few minutes showing them where the Start->Programs is and how they can get to common apps like, say Office.
So far no complaints, they have used it mainly for a few websites (gmail, youtube, rediff). Sound worked fine but occasionally seems to die, necessitating a reboot.
But I don't think they could have just jumped in and started to use it after installation was complete.
I had the devil of a time trying to get wireless connectivity to work. I had 3 different adapters with me, a NetGear MA111 v2 which just was not supported, an eHome(Dlink under the covers) 2 dollar piece that was recognised but for which I couldn't get NDISWrapper to work, and a relatively new TrendNet which wasn't recognised period. Which was unfortunate because according the numerous websites I visited, this one actually had worked.
Finally I got one of my friends to return an old no-name adapter that I had lent him and surprise, surprise that worked native without the hassle of NDISwrapper.
Once I had connectivity, I still ran into some issues with firefox plugins. But I think I'd have had the same with IE on Windows- I'd have had to install Real Player even over there. But the media player plugin was an additional hassle that I'd not have had on Windows/IE.
Getting it to work with Raaga was not easy and I still can't navigate between songs or skip the annoying Citibank ad which goes "Do you have loved ones in India..."
Shockwave doesn't work, this I discovered after spending ages trying to get flash to work without realising that the site was actually using shockwave.
Most websites seem to work fine. I can't watch some embedded video, like the US Open's website.
I haven't figured out how to make it suspend and revive it- if I use the suspend option it refuses to wake up and I have to switch it off and on.
I think if I had go a new brand-name wireless adapter, I wouldn't have had a problem. My friend said he just plugged in a stick he found in a bin at the Walmart and it worked straightaway.
I haven't seen if it works with my old web-cam. I don't have an iPod but do have an MP3 player that I should test out.
As to stability- the PC had run XP-home for almost 6 years without a single BSOD, so that will be hard to beat!
In conclusion, can a non-techie person (like the missus) buy one of the new Dell/Ubuntu PC's bring it home and start working? Yes, if they have firefox exposure like she has. And somebody spends a few minutes showing them where the Start->Programs is and how they can get to common apps like, say Office.
