When I'm interested enough I'll answer to Flaming_Maniac (hopefully so that we can both understand what I mean ). It's probably going to be a lengthy post so can you, newbie13, (or any other mod) create a new thread for space related stuff/discussion and move all space related "conversation" from this thread in there?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Formally requesting that posts beyond this point return to topic.Leave this space blank. ON PAIN OF DEATH.
...
Search
Search results: 274 found, showing up to 50
What of the other options are closer to science fiction than reality? I don't deny that nuclear pulse propulsion might be the most effective for blasting away from earth, but do I care about this? No, not really. I answered to newbie13 how nuclear propulsion is on its way and how it will give us to better cards for space exploration. I did not answer what is the most powerful tool to get us out of the earth, I answered a more feasible method than the current use of chemical propulsion.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
a) closer to science fiction than reality
b) are a major health/environmental issue
c) do not have the same technical capabilities of the nuclear explosion rockets that we have been talking about
What about our industry, transportation, nourishment? You do understand that even if we did 100 nuclear pulse propulsion launches from earth, it would cause less death casualties/diseases than our factories, or cars, or passive tobacco smoke, or deaths caused from food-related poisoning? Do you have any idea how much more radiation one coal plant spews around than one nuclear pulse propulsion launch from earth could cause?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
To draw any sort of parallel between potentially fatal engineering equipment and certainly fatal engineering equipment is beyond logical fallacy.
This is a short term/long term profit problem. We rather wait 100, even 1000 years polluting, poisoning and killing ourselves here because it is ethically wrong when one nuclear spacecraft launch might cause a death of 10 people in the same period of time as half a coal plant. Few seems to care that even the one launch could get us more information about space (moon and Mars especially) and solve more problems around nuclear propulsion than we had ever imagined. At the moment nuclear spacecraft is the only way we are able to obtain helium 3 feasibly, and frankly this situation is not going to change any time soon... probably not until we get more of helium 3 in our hands.
Neither is the nuclear propulsion the final tool to use, it is the tool to get the information about all-around safe method for us to use. This seems to be illogically difficult thing to grasp for some. We rather use every other method we think is necessary to gain the access to what we want, doesn't seem to matter how many people suffer from it or how many deaths are caused by it, than actually try to improve the situation fast so our loss wouldn't grow forever more.
Building a power plant might cause long term deaths and yield short term profits that are minimal in the long run.
Launching a nuclear pulse propulsion spacecraft from earth might, also, cause long term deaths but it is likely to yield long term profits that are benefits us greatly in the long run.
The whole wikipedia citation of how one launch would kill 1 between 10 people is unproven and is based on the lack of threshold when calculated.
I don't quite understand what to answer. Did you read any of the other links?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
But we are not talking about those other form of propulsion, we are talking about nuclear explosion powered vehicles. None of the other forms of nuclear propulsion equal the performance and technical feasibility of nuclear explosion.
Ok, nice. Care to answer my question?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Big fucking difference between malfunctioning equipment and signing a death warrant every time it works correctly. Big fucking difference between "risk" and "acceptable losses".
Heh, I think the below one.
Mushroom.
Mushroom.
Does this count? It's some sort of caterpillar or grub. It was stiff like a stick... or woody. I know, I know...
My link has a list of "proposed and theorized nuclear rocket propulsion" options. It is there because, while we have made basically backwards progress in (space) rocketry in the last 50 years (as I stated earlier), we still have, ironically, quite many options to choose from.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
your link -> releveant link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion ->
Should we not use engineering applications, that might cause harm or in the worst possible situation cause a death of someone, then?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Nuclear explosion powered propulsion in the atmosphere is dumb. Period.wikipedia wrote:
There were also ethical issues with launching such a vehicle within the Earth's magnetosphere. Calculations showed that the fallout from each takeoff would kill between 1 and 10 people (a claim that has been disputed: see radiation hormesis).
In 99% of cases, engineering that kills someone when it works is not acceptable, and this is no exception.
Not a problem, problem is with treaties concerning nuclear usage.SenorToenails wrote:
The entire point of project orion was to launch huge spacecraft. Like, proposals for up to 8 million tons. The space shuttle can carry 26.8 tons to LEO, but the early designs for spacecraft using nuclear propulsion started at 4,000 tons...what kind of rocket could get that off the ground? Of course, it would take 800 0.15kt nuclear detonations to carry that 4000 ton spacecraft to LEO.
Not a problem either, problem is getting the funding from imaginary market.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
you take pieces into space and assemble it there...
Of course it would not defeat the huge benefit of the project. At the moment it takes 12 months to travel in Mars, with nuclear spacecraft we could travel there in 4 weeks. That is an enormous advantage for what options we have now.SenorToenails wrote:
That would defeat a huge benefit of the project. It would take 200 shuttle missions to get all that mass into LEO. There have only been 132 shuttle launches since the program started in 1981.
We have had (and still have) so few shuttle missions because "space exploration belongs into long term profit category, it's not a short term profit like it should be".
Assembling in space is a viable solution and better stacking station in space would be tremendous help in our future projects. It would help (possible) space elevator project too. As space elevator needs a big counterweight, stacking station could serve as one while serving as an assembly station for space shuttles. First we should overcome with couple problems though, for one, space debris may end the whole space elevator project until we figure out how to get rid of it.
Will see if LiftPort has our first operational space elevator ready by 2014
Here's about tether propulsion if anyone's interested, it may be the most feasible idea of launching a spacecraft.
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I can't believe you are seriously talking about launching spacecraft from earth with nuclear powered rockets.
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
even remotely considering nuclear rockets viable for ground to orbit transportation viable is beyond ridiculous. The environmental impact, the non-fatal ramifications, the fatal ramifications...jesus. You're really willing to kill someone for a space launch? Did you consider the population has more than doubled since 1960? That population is growing at an exponential rate? That advancements like this are not one-off deals, that we need something that can be done over and over and over?
There's nothing dumb in it. It's not a one massive explosion, it's a series of light explosions to create the energy to push the spacecraft forward. It is likely as safe as riding a nuclear submarine and. Only downside is if the spacecraft happens to blow out, but even then it's not a nuclear explosion that occurs and the fallout is not devastating like killing millions of people. It's more like killing 20 people over the long years, it is quite as dangerous as walking on the streets of a big city and getting a cancer from car fumes.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
By which I mean, not spewing nuclear fallout every launch and more closer to reality than science fiction.
Back in the sixties it was found out how safe nuclear propulsion actually is, and frankly we have made at least some progress from those days.
Nuclear propulsion
The time we could save with nuclear propulsion, be it from the ground launch or launching from space, is tremendous.
It's also a viable option to launch each nuclear spacecraft (two - four would be more than enough) only once from earth and dock them it in the space station and use chemical shuttles to move back and forth from that space station.
Edit, edit, edit...
Both of them, Kaukonen and Ladyzhensky, took painkillers (while the Russian guy used some skin lotion too...). You're supposed to feel something when your kidneys and white blood cells start boiling. Other participants had no problems at all and came out just fine -- maybe they actually felt how their body was alarming them. Kaukonen and Ladyzhensky were boiling like egg whites but obviously they had no idea of it. Just one paracetamol can change everything.Ultrafunkula wrote:
Kaukonen is in a coma. Imo the organisers fucked up by tuning the heat so much up. It's also hilarious to read in the papers some reactions of all kinds of know-it-all idiots who never been in a sauna in their whole life.
And I can't believe what was going inside the head of that Russian guy. He was using skin lotion (vaseline, skin moisturizer, or whatever) to block the burn feeling of the skin. His skin wasn't breathing at all, he was basically like a pressure cooker.
Sad times for their families.
Shouldn't painkillers or(/and) skin moisturizer in sauna competition.
Well, Timo Kaukonen is in hospital and it's unsure whether he had some help from painkillers (too).:blacKOut: wrote:
I read Rick Reilly's article about the Sauna World Championships and apparently Timo Kaukonen is the best one out there.
In 2018 - 2022 we may have our first nuclear powered spacecraft.SenorToenails wrote:
He's talking about Project Orion, if anyone wants to read more.BLdw wrote:
Fifty years ago some scientists brought up the idea of using nuclear propulsion for spacecrafts. Well, nuclear propulsion wasn't implemented for some reasons (eventhough it was quite heavily studied and tested...), but you should be happy to know that, while we have basically made backwards progress in our space shuttles in the last 50 years, nuclear propulsion might be on its way to here. Little late but better than never, right? Right. http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/BLdw/wink2.gif
Many astronomers (especially fifty or older) are very upset for mankind because we didn't go with nuclear propulsion right from the start.
I wonder if we have our first space elevator before that
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100810/twl … f21e0.html
Fifty years ago some scientists brought up the idea of using nuclear propulsion for spacecrafts. Well, nuclear propulsion wasn't implemented for some reasons (eventhough it was quite heavily studied and tested...), but you should be happy to know that, while we have basically made backwards progress in our space shuttles in the last 50 years, nuclear propulsion might be on its way to here. Little late but better than never, right? Right.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
The Mars vid is depressing. I'll probably be dead before any country gets the gumption to send a manned mission. >
Many astronomers (especially fifty or older) are very upset for mankind because we didn't go with nuclear propulsion right from the start.
Steven Seagal.
That spider looks like he wants to have a word or two with you.
Her eyes are very nice, very sparkly, like a nebula (NGC 6751). Is she your daughter?
A drunk like me posting precious waters...
Smooth moving with evil wheel, nice. Very nice.liquidat0r wrote:
New challenge:
http://www.wimp.com/workoutroutine/
(If anyone can find the YouTube link, that'd be cool)
I will get this if it's well done, but I think I'll just pass it if it's just a simulator. Eventually, while simulators are nice and all, they lack the in-depth feeling. For me at least.
Ah the graphics, so beautiful.
You need only the points. IO whores have no other badges than support badge(s), gaymore badge and medic badge(s), yet they may have all the unlocks.
Hahah, yeah. A friend of mine pointed that out for me just a while ago. Quality stuff
Biking shoes, running shoes and boots. Boots are only shoes that I don't wear every day.
Watergate scandal was backed up with (basically) only anonymous sources and it still seemed to turn 'alright'.11 Bravo wrote:
the fact that we cant verify the person giving the info is a joke.
It's just business. As long as US keeps paying Pakistan, Pakistan will do everything they can to keep that money pouring in. And for some reason I don't quite believe US is going to stop paying Pakistan any time soon. There are people profiting of this situation on both sides. Only people suffering from this situation are US soldiers, US civilians, Afghani civilians and Pakistani civilians.ATG wrote:
Ya, lets keep pretending with have allies in the Paki government and pissing lives and men away for nothing.
Floppy is right, you need something to burn down the biomass in Residential.
For speed run it's better to go with flamer + grenade launcher + ice grenade(/depends).
If you want to make it sure you're not going to die, use tesla + chainsaw + whatever.
For speed run it's better to go with flamer + grenade launcher + ice grenade(/depends).
If you want to make it sure you're not going to die, use tesla + chainsaw + whatever.
Blink is sick. It teleports instantly, stuns all the creatures around and has unlimited uses (as far as I know).
Edgar Allan Poe writes like Jane Austen, H. P. Lovecraft and James Joyce.
I write like Ill Iterate.
I write like Ill Iterate.
It reminds me of a depressed man with bad posture. Maybe change that dark grey to something other, and test different colour choices for that orange. At the moment that orange looks "dirty", though it might be because of that grey.
You might find something useful options from here.
You might find something useful options from here.
I remember your clan from FCW. I quite enjoyed the teamplay on that server. Shame that the whole server went down.
I tried to get some reflections, my gaming desk is always dirty and seems a little scratchy too.
Some juice...
And here's a spare testicle. Just tell me if you shy one testicle.
Some juice...
And here's a spare testicle. Just tell me if you shy one testicle.
Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic. (AoWSM is turn based strategy game with separate fields where battles occur.) My favourite strategy game (as multiplayer wise) of all time.
L4D1/2 every now and then.
Total Annihilation. Yeah the old one! Some crazy good mods in that game. It's also a whole lot more enjoyable than SC's... despite the bad graphics.
CIV(s). I play... nowadays quite rarely actually.
L4D1/2 every now and then.
Total Annihilation. Yeah the old one! Some crazy good mods in that game. It's also a whole lot more enjoyable than SC's... despite the bad graphics.
CIV(s). I play... nowadays quite rarely actually.
You didn't miss it because it didn't happened, what's your point?Surgeons wrote:
It might just be me but I didn't see a Spaniard stud a Dutchman in the chest last night.
E: I might have missed it when I went to get a drink though, so apologies if I did BLdw.
I didn't try to compare. What was utter bollocks? I have a very simple point: rule breaking is rule breaking, no matter how you look at it. NED just happened to use more force in how they broke rules, SPA players just pulled the same shit in a more subtle way. It was equally dirty gameplay from both teams when you compare what ought to be allowed in football. It's not going to be any less of a rule break if you kick in the legs of your opponent because your opponent just kicked you in the chest.Zimmer wrote:
@ BLdw - HAHAHAHAHA, I can't believe you just tried to compare the dirtiness of Spain's play to the Netherlands play. What you said about that was utter bollocks.
Well, someone could say it's utter disgrace that Spain went to finals with their Oscar worthy filming. Torres in Chile game? Capdevila in Portugal game? Iniesta in finals?Zimmer wrote:
Please explain how that is utter bollocks.1927 wrote:
Thats utter bollocksZimmer wrote:
If Holland had won this World Cup, it would have been an utter disgrace to football.
The fact is, they didn't play football, they went in for a little kicking game. That was all they did, and it was horrible to watch. Every commentator said so, and I agree with them. They were an utter disgrace.
No, I am not kidding you. Van Bommel tried to play the ball (even if you don't agree with it), maybe rough but he was still trying to play it and Howard Webb thought it wasn't worthy of a whistle/card. Iniesta didn't try to play the ball... not even football, he deliberately tried to push/hit Van Bommel to the ground. Result for doing something like that is always a red card. It's just as simple as that.Zimmer wrote:
Are you kidding me about Iniesta being sent off? Are you actually having a laugh? Did you watch the replays of it? Van Bommel did that deliberately, and yeah Iniesta pushed him but Van Bommel exaggerated it. Also, did you see the kick he threw at Iniesta in that tackle? That was a straight red. Fucking outrageous tbh.
It's laughable when everyone's blaming Netherlands for dirty play while Spain pulled the exact same shit.
Besides you exaggerate that situation if you think it was worthy of a red card for Van Bommel. Sure Bommel would have deserved his red card like many others but not from that situation.
True that. But if Van Bommel and De Jong deserved their red cards, so did Iniesta.m3thod wrote:
Clinging onto the the incorrect call by the ref is nothing more than a last act of desperation.
And second yellow for Puyol for hanging in Robben like a Tarzan.
Neither of the teams played clean, not even close. It was entertaining game but it could've been a whole lot better.
You would think finding better arguments backed up with better sources is easier from DST than EE. That doesn't seem to be the case nearly as often as it should be. The problem I see here is the "no-one else knows the truth better than I" mentality. Yeah, you're unique, only about 6.8 billion people share this same feeling.
Because somewhat majority of discussion seems to revolve around politics (/Islam, heheheh), or turn to that at some point, wouldn't it be better if people avoided their 100% exactly right truth which is merely an opinion anyway? It gets tedious to read (can't even imagine what it is to "discuss" about it) 10 pages of circle jerk between two persons and and neither of the persons discussing can't even accept the basic logic other one is using. I'm not saying everyone here is like that (some of you guys actually produce some "interesting" stuff to read every now and then) but more than often this seems to be the rule here.
There's nothing more enjoyable than reading phrases as "the fact is", "the truth is", "that is the truth", "I know exactly how it is" in every serious discussion. People seem to know basically everything here, maybe some of us here are very humble, obviously, because they rather spend their time writing here than solving those problems.
Because somewhat majority of discussion seems to revolve around politics (/Islam, heheheh), or turn to that at some point, wouldn't it be better if people avoided their 100% exactly right truth which is merely an opinion anyway? It gets tedious to read (can't even imagine what it is to "discuss" about it) 10 pages of circle jerk between two persons and and neither of the persons discussing can't even accept the basic logic other one is using. I'm not saying everyone here is like that (some of you guys actually produce some "interesting" stuff to read every now and then) but more than often this seems to be the rule here.
There's nothing more enjoyable than reading phrases as "the fact is", "the truth is", "that is the truth", "I know exactly how it is" in every serious discussion. People seem to know basically everything here, maybe some of us here are very humble, obviously, because they rather spend their time writing here than solving those problems.
I think it was boring game, it was like a crowd of men trying to open a big tuna can.Zimmer wrote:
Also, I haven't heard a single commentator say that it was a bad game or it was boring or Spain's gameplay was poor.
I'm not going to say "Spaniards" play badly, actually they play very well (despite the fact that they had some trouble finishing goals...), but if you compare the way Spanish play today to how Germany played 20 years ago, there's very little difference. They move closer to the "enemy line" step by step, pass by pass, then pass it back to some defender and start building again. This is exactly what majority of people called "unoriginal" and boring football when Germany did it, but now when Spanish are doing it, it's just beautiful, tactical victory and full of imagination.
Reason why yesterday's match wasn't dead boring and why there was at least some "action" is because Germany defended so close to their goal (almost) the whole time. Whole this world Cup Germany have tried to keep it fast paced, as it seemed to suit their young team the best. Now Germany didn't play at all like that. Instead of playing like the way they played before, they stalled the game and even kept passing the ball back to Spanish players. There was good game in the last 8 minutes of the first half when the ball was actually moving -- and in the end when Germany had to take risks to even the game. During these moments the game was opened a bit and it looked like a... normal football between two good teams.
I think the iron defence (hah, iron...) Germany build up sucked big time and killed the whole match. This made the game very slow paced. Of course this might feel completely different for a supporter of either of the teams, but for me the game was boring because of that. Only thing I really liked was the good referee (he didn't whistle for nothing) and very clean game (no bad tackles and no crazy attempts of diving) which allowed very free flow in the game.
I think the referee (Viktor Kassai) in Germany - Spain match did very well.m3thod wrote:
Howard Webb will be the ref in the final. Should be a good final as he lets the game flow.
although he has dished out the second most cards in the tournament....
It's a salt stone lamp and I bet he has licked it a bit to see if it tastes salty. :pburnzz wrote:
menzo, does your pet rock have an extension cord?
I dunno how fun you guys had last time, but I think it could be funnier with faster cars chasing than HMMWVs.
Increase the speed of HMMWV (like DPV).
Increase the armour HMMWV (same as BH now).
Increase the damage of AT, C4 and .50 cal (so one AT and C4 could still take HMMWVs down).
This should fasten the game, bigger jumps and just overall more risk free driving without worrying of ramming some rock and dying. While being able to drive like crazy, AT C4 and .50 would still carry out the job just the same.
Well, my thoughts. Gonna see what you guys come up with.
Increase the speed of HMMWV (like DPV).
Increase the armour HMMWV (same as BH now).
Increase the damage of AT, C4 and .50 cal (so one AT and C4 could still take HMMWVs down).
This should fasten the game, bigger jumps and just overall more risk free driving without worrying of ramming some rock and dying. While being able to drive like crazy, AT C4 and .50 would still carry out the job just the same.
Well, my thoughts. Gonna see what you guys come up with.
No language thing, it's easier to solve with open mind. Odds aren't against you.Eifa wrote:
ok i don't get it. what am i supposed to guess really?
might be the language thing but i don't have a clue about what i'm even trying to figure out there.
I faintly recall this test being in form of:
2 3 = 10
7 2 = 63
6 5 = 66
8 4 = 96
What is 9 7 = ?
Something do with giving more abstract base to start with.
Also, this question tests (as far I know) ways of solving mathematical puzzles, so I can't really understand how it could determine overall IQ. :p
2 3 = 10
7 2 = 63
6 5 = 66
8 4 = 96
What is 9 7 = ?
Something do with giving more abstract base to start with.
Also, this question tests (as far I know) ways of solving mathematical puzzles, so I can't really understand how it could determine overall IQ. :p
Couple pictures.
This' from just moments ago...
...this one is 'bout week older.
This' from just moments ago...
...this one is 'bout week older.
Heh, how many of you guys have bought PS (any of the products)? I read something about 45 - 55% of PS users having pirated copy of PS. Nothing special, considering the price of Adobe products.Wallpaper wrote:
Camm, those are pretty good but they really need lightening in PS
Go somewhere further south, somewhere where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and you don't know the names of the players.Ultrafunkula wrote:
But really she asked me to get some ideas locations and such. Was thinking on booking a cheap flight to N.Y. and get a trip to somewhere from there. What would be a trustworthy, relatively cheap, travel agency in ze U.S. ? All I can think of is that one who is sponsoring the Amazing race, Travelocity.
Well fuck it, you don't know where I took that anyway...
It's actually pretty good in 1.5, with good BH squad it's easy to dominate a map (well, Mashtuur or Songhua and have some fun in Tampa). Sure it's not as good as it used to be in the first place, but now it is possible (and quite easy) to take down cars, ground pounders and APC's. Unlike in 1.4 for example.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If they reset the splash damage on the Blackhawk to even a shadow of what it was in earlier versions of the game, I would definitely play again.
It's just hard to find good crew, most people still fly it into 600 and want people to parachute from it. That's boring.
The way I see: use technology as long as it doesn't destroy the free flow of the game. We don't have the technology to use it in all situations, it would break the game in pieces. But we should use our technology to our advance as much as possible.KingCheese wrote:
I don't see how you can draw a line and say this is important enough to warrant a replay, but this doesn't matter. To me it's all or nothing, you accept human fallability on all decisions or take away any element of doubt at all.
Compare every possible contributing factor between top and lower divisions if rule set is the only solid thing in football. It's stupid, but yeah go ahead.mikkel wrote:
In the sense that comparable situations would be handled the same in the second division as they would in the top division? No.
We don't have as good referees (in regards of experience) as is used in top divisions. Due not having headsets we don't have as good communication link between our referees as top divisions have. Africans, Chinese, South-American and many of the countries in Middle East (and maybe even Russia) sure as hell are not in the same boat either. Playing conditions aren't as good here as in top divisions, in many of the 3rd world countries most of the games aren't even played on grass field.
Here situations are unlikely to be handled in the same as they are in top divisions because even our way of playing is not same, all we have common with everyone else in the world are our very same rules that we try to follow the best we can
Knowing the truth changes everything. You are unlikely to see slow motion replays of bottom division games, so how can someone tell if that ball was in the goal or not, how can someone tell if that red card was called for or not? It's all different here, we can see every situation couple seconds later in super slow motion if we wish, even the players can see it. What's the point to have such strict rules in football if we don't even try to enforce them to our best without breaking the free flow of the game?mikkel wrote:
A red card in the bottom division is as indisputable during the match as a red card in the top division is. A goal in the bottom division is as indisputable after play has been resumed as it is in the top division. Likewise, a situation in the bottom division cannot be reviewed, just like it can't be reviewed in the top division.
We are entitled to see how all the stupid mistakes referees make change the outcome of matches but there's nothing anyone can do about it. No, because then we would have to rely on technology that some 3rd world country is never able to use anyway.
...mikkel wrote:
The system for observing the rules is part of the rules, You change the system, you change the rules.
There are rules in football and we should try to enforce them the best we can without destroying the flow of the game.
Edit: mumble with the editing deleting shit...
Referee call. He will whistle or he will not whistle, we don't have technology to have 100% right calls for every situation yet. We should use our current technology as much as possible without breaking the free flow of the sport.KingCheese wrote:
Ok in this example, what would happen? A defender makes a tackle on an attacker. It looks like a nasty one. The replay comes up - but the tackle was hard but fair. No one has done anything wrong. What happens? A drop ball is a shitty resolution imo, but you can't give possesion to either team because no one has done anything wrong. Where do we go from here?
If the tackle happens inside 16 and referee whistles, he may as well have a look at the replay (preferably listening instructions from video referee) because the game is halt for several next minutes anyway. In that kind of situation referee could try to have as accurate decision as possible. Referee ball (a drop ball it is called, eh?) would be a way better option than giving a free penalty over basically nothing. But that is very opinion dividing situation and is probably not supported by many, as this is where our technology would change the game itself a little (whistle inside 16 and suddenly a drop ball because whistle was uncalled in the first place).
Rules of the football would remain same.mikkel wrote:
Because one of the appeals of football is that due to the league structure, the rules of football must be the same on all levels.
We play under same rules but not under same conditions as the best players in the world. Being able to play under same conditions is not going to happen any time soon, unlikely to happen in our lifetime.mikkel wrote:
When you sign up with your friends to play in the lowest national division, then you're supposed to be able play under precisely the same rules and conditions as the best players in the world [...]
It's quite simple really, the higher the level of competition is the less there should be room for something else than the competing teams to change the outcome.Mekstizzle wrote:
They could do it just for the World Cup. Then people will say well what about the European cup, then the Champions league... then the individual leagues. Afterwards it just spirals out and creates even bigger gaps between the leagues and changes the game too much.
I don't see how it would change the game (sport) at all.
a) I would go for red cards and goals (maybe penalties too... haven't had too much thought on this one). Game is going to be stopped anyway so I don't see any reason for not having the right (or at least as right as possible) call.KingCheese wrote:
(a) where do you draw the line as to what is deemed replay worthy
(b) how do you restart the game after a replay if an infringement hasn't taken place. If those two questions could be answered reasonably I'd be happy to see them.
b) Referee ball, goalie kick or kickoff depending of what happened.
Technology should be used as much as possible to help to have right calls but without intervening the free flow of the game.
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
1) Too much software can be mistaken for malware. Who's going to program the recognition database and keep IT safe from interference?
That's the way to generalize.mikkel wrote:
It's always the newcomers, the people who've watched a match or two, who come to offer their expert opinions on the matter as if everyone else is wrong. These people need to come to terms with the fact that, apparently, they just don't like the sport, and that it doesn't mean that the sport should change. These people will stop moaning as soon as the World Cup is over, and the rest of us can get back to watching quality football from the best leagues.
You are free to be amazed, we don't live in 1990's anymore. Let's take a look of replay from 6:20 in ARG - MEX game. Slide tackle takes place in 6:20 and slow motion of the situation is out at 6:28. Or 8:30 when slow motion of the situation is out couple seconds later at 8:36. There's no need for referee (main) to see instant replay to make his final call, they have headsets and they should use them the best they can. In my opinion this technology should be used to check game breaking events.Kmarion wrote:
I would be amazed if it was done within 30 seconds as well.
There have been bad calls ever since 1982 World Cups (that's the earliest world cup I watched), when is the right time we start making right calls in the first place? The only difference here is that these days football players act more and we have better technology to keep the game as fair as possible for both teams.Kmarion wrote:
Make the right call in the first place
I repeat myself here, no it does not. We don't live in 1990's anymore. We have the technology to watch instant replays couple seconds later, we have headsets to communicate with each-other, why not use them to our advantage?Kmarion wrote:
The stop and start process of video review would destroy the fluidity of the game.
Saying it's a slippery slope to [somewhere] and how it would end the free flow of the game is just odd. Instead of that, our current technology could make the game even more fluid, when we could just avoid wrong red cards and wrong goal calls.
This must be such a relief for the team if they just dropped out because of it..Kmarion wrote:
Red cards can be appealed for the following games.
Nothing wrong with the sport, a lot wrong with refereeing and acting.nukchebi0 wrote:
What a joke. This is getting even more pathetic than it already is, almost to the point of laughably embarrassing. This is the sport the world holds so dear to its heart? In it's current form, I'm quite content to be an American.