Sigi_BC84

Sorry, I can't hold myself back to address this. Firstly, should the question be why a team is successful? You're mentioning "spectacular football". Which teams are actually consistenly guilty of such? Even the Netherlands and Brazil (!) have started to play "result oriented". No, honestly I think when you're discussing EC and WC success, in the end what counts are titles and results. Many factors are involved, including luck, determination, team play, coaching, individual quality of players and tradition of a team. There are not many teams in the world which are playing consistenly successful soccer in international events -- now like it or not, but one of them is, and will be, Germany. Whinging about their style does not change that. I'm wondering why nobody is mentioning Italy. They often play unfair (ie. foul), they are not afraid of pouring loads of concrete into their own penalty area when they see fit and -- worst of all -- they're terribly sore losers. And Germany gets the blame for playing "boring soccer". This smells a bit like envy. (Before anybody jumps at my throat for mentioning Italy: I am not anti-Italian, I rather find their attitude quite amusing.) Secondly, please, please at least try to consider that the current German team is a young team (as is the Dutch one, mind you). You can't expect a bunch of legends with star qualities here. What I really admire is Klinsmanns ability to finally make a change and rejuvenate the team. So far, it has worked great. They are a team, and that's why they are successful without many stars. I can tell you, Germans are renowned for their defeatism, and rightly so. They like to critize everything, including the national team. Finally this has changed for a few weeks, and most importantly, for a reason. This team deserves to be praised, and they are thriving on it. And I can tell you, it feels really good to all of us. End of rant. --Sigi

I don't know what "Rock'n'Roll" is supposed to mean these days. Anyways, here's my pick for one awesome cover version: Personal Jesus by the great Johnny Cash (original by Depeche Mode). --Sigi

I've voted for Brazil -- mainly out of defeatism. Actually I think it's a close call between Argentina, Brazil, Germany and Italy. Ukraine is out of the question, but England, France and Portugal have at least a chance in my eyes. Who knows. Sooner or later a lot of luck will get involved... --Sigi

Yeah, fascinating actually. In the next round, three big names will have to leave the stage. My bet: France, Ukraine and England; I hope the fourth one will be Argentina, but unfortunately it's 50/50 or so odds... England have their chances to advance as well (I've started telling myself that so I won't be so disappointed if it actually happens ;-). Personal nightmare scenario: France, England and Ukraine somehow manage to worm their way through, while Germany gets eliminated in the last second. I don't want to think about it :-). --Sigi

Very easy to see if you simply assume extraction costs which are higher than the extracted value (in terms of energy used and energy potential gained). --Sigi

OK, I thought you were referring to the group lottery. In Italy there were the usual ridiculous speculations about fraud (quite funnily, one of their theories was that the ballots containing the easy opponents for Germany have been kept in a fridge until right before the broadcast :-). I think the easy groups are a result of the fact that too many weak teams are allowed into the World Cup. Group A hasn't been the only easy one (Group D had Iran and Angola, Group H Saudi-Arabia and Tunisia and an overrated Ukraine). Undoubtedly the host nation has certain advantage to their side, but at the moment I don't see were Germany has been given unfair advantages because they're the host nation. --Sigi

To be honest I'd like to hear the names from you. You have made quite a few well-informed comments so far, why should anybody blame you for dropping a few names. When in doubt, people will assume anyway that it's just out of frustration about the English performance ;-). I agree with what you have said about a good ref policy so far. Too many yellows are shown for acceptable tackles. On the other hand, some really annoying stuff (like dress tucking) has almost vanished due to the hard line the refs are going about this. So the situation is not completely hopeless. No, what I find the most annoying are the fussy offside decisions. 1 out of 3 offsides are actual equal height situations decided in favor of the defending team (actually they should be made in favor of the advancing team, according to official policy). This is so damn frustrating. Beautiful advances are stopped because the linesman imagines an offside. One of my friends has suggested to bring in two additional linesmen and only give a freekick if both of them see an offside. Maybe this would work, anyways something has to be done. I also agree with what you have said quite in the beginning of this thread about the general quality of the refs: having only Champions League refs would be a lot better. Just for the sake of internationalism the FIFA is bringing in too many inexperienced referees from countries without high class tournaments/leagues. Podolski is young and inexperienced, and I also think he's not the brightest. Probably refs don't take it even seriously if such players do that. In principle you are right, of course, but I think there are worse offenses. A good referee will get so much respect that the players won't even dare patronizing or harassment (cf. Collina). --Sigi

I think the Red Card decision was wrong (bad foulplay but Yellow would have been enough). I also think the Penalty Kick decision was okay. My first emotional reaction was different but in the end I have to admit that it had to be penalized. Obviously the Italian didn't make an effort not to fall at this point, but nobody would have. It was quite careless by the Australian to jump into his way the way he did. I'm very disappointed that the Aussies got eliminated that way, literally in the last second. They have played a good tournament and I hope they'll find a good coach to continue the excellent work of Guus Hiddink. --Sigi

Hey Roland, nice trolling attempt. I will follow-up again after the Germans have sent Argentina home on Friday. Please already start thinking about your next prediction "when the party will be over (for real, this time)", because I'll be expecting one from you by then :-). Cheers, Sigi

Four reds is World Cup historical record. I can't remember a game as crooked and chaotic as this one -- great show in any case ;-). England is not going to be hard, because England sucks in this tournament. Portugal should be able to beat them even without Costinha and Deco. I guess the real problem for Portugal will be there in the semi-finals -- five players (including Figo and Maniche) are bringing yellows with them out of the brawl against Netherlands and each of them will be sitting out if they draw another one against England. Anyways, I'll cross my fingers for Portugal during their next match that they'll teach the English their overdue lesson. I'd cry myself to sleep if Mr. Hairdo, Bean Pole and Pancake Face make it into the semis. --Sigi

England in the Soccer World Cup

(talking about the host team) Luck has nothing to do with this. Sounds Italian -- I thought you are from Argentina... --Sigi

Every German fan still right in his mind agrees with that. In 2002 it was mainly luck and the extraordinary performance of goal keeper Oliver Kahn what brought us into the finals. This time we were lucky again to get an easy group which allowed the team to find their rhythm and start into the tournament with a row of successes. However, many things have changed since 2002 (or the disastrous European Championships in 2004). A few very young players are in key positions, Klose has developed a lot and the coach has changed and brought in a new philosophy and new methods. Nobody is comparing the team to the one of 2002 and nobody is mentioning the 2002 success to rectify hopes of taking the title this year. We went through a depression after the ECs and a few disappointing games after the Confed Cup -- many people didn't really believe into the German team until they showed what they can achieve. You might easily be right here. Many people have good hopes of beating Argentina, but I think everybody is aware that it is a very high hurdle to take. The winner of this match will become top contender for the title. If the South Americans can step up a gear, so can the Germans! This team is not getting worse, but steadily improving so far. Team spirit and morale is excellent. I predict an even and exciting match Germany vs. Argentina and my feeling is that chances are even for both teams. FWIW, one of the major bookies operating in Germany agrees: their odds at the moment are 2.60/3.20/2.60... --Sigi

The theorem isn't paradoxical, but the "this statement is false" idea is used in the proof. I, perhaps somewhat sloppily, referred to this idea as a paradox. Helene expands a bit on how this comes in to the proof above: you figure out how to write the statement "this statement is unprovable" in your formal system (or, perhaps more precisely, "this statement is unprovable in this formal system"). Then there can't be a proof of this in the formal system, but this means it's true (and, of course, unprovable). Yes, but doesn't that make it merely an example of "proof by contradiction"? (NB I understand now what you meant by "at the heart of it it's paradoxical", so no need to argue further on that ;-). --Sigi

These are on Chuck Norris Facts. I love them. I've seen a clip from a US TV show were Chuck himself read out his favourites :-). --Sigi

You are a Germany supporter, I am not; nothing strange about that since you are German. I honestly think that Sweden has a better team than Germany, not least demonstrated against England last night. However, no matter who wins, that team is unlikely to get past Argentina one round later. Roland, maybe you are more than just slightly frustrated that Denmark didn't even qualify, and now you are making emotional and -- to put it diplomatically -- off-beat comments about the German performance. I think it makes you look pretty lame at this point. Germany's performance so far has been splendid and they are getting better and better. They dominated the Swedes today (who probably sh*t their pants before and during the match for prolonged periods of time) and we will see an exciting match against Argentina in a few days. With both teams having chances of winning. Cheer up, probably Denmark will be playing the European Championships in two years time. --Sigi

I deliberately used the phrasing "...there will always be thruths hidden from you while within your chosen system..." with which I meant that while working with a given system of axioms you will not be able to prove certain statements. This is what I meant by "hidden". To not make a complete fool out of myself I would have to read up quite thoroughly on this stuff before making more statements, but on the above I'm actually quite sure even now :-). kfgauss: I don't see at the moment where Gödel's Theorem is paradoxical, maybe you could try to explain that. --Sigi

There are some misconceptions about Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem here. First of all, it is not considered merely "important" but one of the most profound theorems dealing with logic and provability. At the beginning of the century, one of the goals of mathematics was to find an algorithm that could be used to prove all of mathematics -- so to speak the universal maths problem solver. Gödel showed with his proof that this is, in principle, unachievable. Gödel's Theorem is not paradoxical in any way. It makes a statement about formal systems (possibly inconsistent ones), but that does not make it paradoxical or inconsistent itself. From the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goedel's_incompleteness_theorem): Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem: For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory. That is, any consistent theory of a certain expressive strength is incomplete. This means that whatever (useful) formal system you choose to research mathematics, there will always be thruths hidden from you while within your chosen system because you cannot prove them (i.e. show their truth value in a consistent way). Example: it could have been possible that Fermat's Last Theorem is true but unprovable. It could be that P=NP (or P!=NP) is true but unprovable. The proof of the incompleteness theorem is not even hard (the hard part lies in getting the necessary formalisms into place). --Sigi

"Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen, and "Sultans of Swing" by Dire Straits.

An undergrad computer science student is geo-caching in the forest with that fancy new GPS receiver he just bought. [replace that by "takes a walk in the forest" if you want but I don't think it sounds credible here ;-).] After a while, way into the woods, he approaches a swamp he's never seen before on his various journeys. Taking a closer look, suddenly a frog jumps out of the swap right in front of his feet. The frog sits there and stares at him. The student picks up the frog, and suddenly the frog says: - "I'm a cursed princess, once I was renowned for my beauty, but an evil witch turned me into this frog. Kiss me and you will liberate me and I'll become your wife till death do us part." The student ponders for a short while and then replies: - "Nah, I don't think I'm gonna do that." - "Why not? Are you married already and won't cheat on your wife?" The student puts the frog in his pocket and says: - "Nah, I don't even had sex before, but, you know, there are so many guys with beautiful girlfriends, that's nothing special, but keeping a talking frog, now that really owns!!"

Josh, this is not American Football or Rugby, it's Soccer. The first red card against the US player was a clear-cut case. Imagine somebody jumps into your ankles at full speed while wearing soccer shoes -- chances are you won't play another match for a few months after such a foul (plus it hurts like hell in any case). The referee MUST show a red card in such a case. The second red was a yellow-red actually. --Sigi

All of it. There are some right extremist groups in the East of the country and they might organize a demonstration march or so but this should be of no concern of the fan / tourist who is visiting the world cup. As always the media tend to blow up such things enormously. Don't hold your breath, Gerben. The fact that you and me are living in peaceful areas of the country where you can count the number of neo-nazis on one hand doesn't mean much either. Some of the hooligan groups are quite organized and they are literally looking for trouble. The UK would not have to bar a large number of these people from travelling during the WC if all of this was overblown. Germany is right in the heart of Europe, so a lot of troublemakers will have the opportunity to come here, and obviously Germany has a lot of appeal for various reasons to many of these groups. I really don't want to sound overly pessimistic here, and as I said I myself have no first hand reasons to be concerned at all, but to brush it off as being hopelessly overblown by the media misses the point in my eyes. --Sigi

Especially for Eastern Germany the threat is quite real. Unfortunately a few very nasty incidents have happened lately and the entire issue is quite heavily discussed in German media as well. Politicians are admitting that it is a real problem. Official warnings are given out to African soccer federations so that they instruct their fans not to visit certain areas. Of course a lot is being done for security, but I'm sure that there will be incidents and I only hope it won't be major rioting. So, well, how overblown it really is remains to be seen, let's hope for the best. I think Brasil is beatable but I'm quite sure that they make it at least to the semi-finals. --Sigi

I know it as "What's green and turns red at the push of a button?" with the follow-up: Q: What's green and stays green at the push of a button? A: A frog in a blender running for his life. Q: What's yellow and extremely dangerous? A: Shark-infested custard. --Sigi

(I've googled this one up since my English wouldn't have been good enough to recite it properly ;-) The farmer was out in his field trying to get another season of plowing from his old horse when all of a sudden this enterprising city slicker came by in his Lincoln. Slamming on his brakes, rammed it into reverse and came back to the farmer. He said, "Nice looking horse you got there, want to sell him?" The farmer couldn't hold back his joy, the words just leaped out of his mouth, "Ya, fifty bucks." The suited-dude pealed off a fifty and yelled he would be back the next day with a trailer. The farmer couldn't contain his excitement all through the night. The old horse had been around for years and he only paid ten bucks for him. A dream come true. Would you believe it...the next day at dawn the farmer and horse were at the same spot near the road, when to his amazement the old horse coughed once and keels over dead as a door nail. Just about that time here comes the Lincoln, the city guy was right there with the trailer. What a let down. Talk about a busted bubble, the pits, a bad hair day all rolled into one. The city guy come on around and after seeing what happened, didn't hesitate. Asked the farmer to help load the dead horse on the trailer. Puzzled the farmer obliged and soon the city slicker, Lincoln, trailer and dead horse were all gone. Just so happened the next month while in town the farmer spotted the same guy. The man came over, shook his hand, patted him on the back and gave him another fifty dollar bill. The puzzled farmer asked what happened, the man said he made $645.00 on the deal. The farmer asked him how he did that. The city guy said he sold the horse in a raffle. The farmer said, "Didn't they get mad?" The city slicker said, "Heck no, just the one, and I gave him back his dollar."