Links

Indeed, by his performances throughout this season, Ronaldo has effectively made a mockery of last December's Fifa World Player of the Year awards, which placed him third behind winner Kaka and runner-up Lionel Messi. For the priceless combination of compelling entertainment and match-winning end-product, the Manchester United winger has had no equal for some time - certainly not Kaka this season. The Brazilian who also pipped Ronaldo to the title of European Footballer of the Year 2007 (Ballon d'Or) has been put firmly in the shade by the continuing exploits of Ronaldo. Why then, do the Portuguese star's critics continue to resist the evidence of their own eyes, and the remarkable statistics? Why does a player like Kaka attract fulsome praise almost unconditionally, while the plaudits for Ronaldo are so often grudgingly given? I'm no great fan of player awards, still less of often spurious comparisons between players, especially those in different leagues or from different eras. I'm also far from being a fan of Manchester United or anything about them. But jealousy, envy or sheer prejudice are no criteria for judgement, and if we are going to judge Ronaldo as a footballer, it is impossible to refute the facts. For his consistency over two seasons, the first of them beginning in the wake of the apparent low-point of his infamous wink at the 2006 World Cup, Ronaldo takes some beating. Furthermore, on the domestic front, his goals have essentially been the difference between Manchester United and the other members of the Premier League's 'Big Four'. He's now scored 59 goals for Manchester United in all competitions during the course of the last two campaigns. In the current one, which still has plenty of life left in it, Ronaldo already has 36 to his name - an astonishing return for a winger. And of course the bald statistics do not tell you anything about the quality of his goals, which in many cases recently has been breathtaking. Why then the continued negativity towards him? There seem to be four sticks with which critics like to beat Ronaldo. The first - that he plays for Manchester United - can be dismissed summarily. United have millions of fans but millions more detractors; that's the nature of football. Refusing to acknowledge their quality - and the calibre of their top players - because of simple jealousy is plainly irrational. The second stick is that Ronaldo is an arrogant show-boater, a luxury player whose self-indulgent tricks on the ball not only detract from the team but deliberately antagonise opponents by seeking to expose their technical weaknesses. Roma midfielder David Pizarro was quick to wield this particular stick after United's victory over Roma last night, amazingly accusing Ronaldo of doing "certain spiteful things on the pitch." Like beating his marker with superior skill? Ronaldo himself answered the charge by insisting his trademark step-overs and other sleight-of-foot tricks are, "nothing against my rivals." He explained: "Those plays are just part of my way of interpreting football. I have always done them, even three or four years ago when I was younger. But there are plays that I do for the good of the team and never to ridicule my opponents. I tried to do the best for Manchester United and not to make a show. It's just a part of who I am." Personally I am saddened when highly skilled players feel obliged to apologise for their superior techical gifts. There was the case recently, for example, when Ronaldo's team-mate and compatriot Nani was pilloried for having the temerity to juggle the ball against Arsenal. That was wrongly construed as disrespect, but it's surely bizarre that in a game that professes to be entertainment, the entertainers are lambasted for being entertaining. As for the charge that Ronaldo is not a team player, that is sheer nonsense. For one thing, the statistics show that while he has amassed 86 goals for United since joining them in 2003, he has also contributed 42 assists. Selfish? Hardly. For another, his work-rate is prodigious, with crosses, assists, chasing back and defending as much a part of all-round game now as the mazy runs and the flow of goals. Then there is the third stick: that Ronaldo is a diver. Only he will know whether every time he has gone to ground it was in response to genuine contact, but certainly that side of his game has improved significantly, and of course anyone playing the game at the speed he does is not only a target for a late tackle, but also more likely to tumble when clipped. It's as much to do with physics and physique as psychology. The associated criticism, that he lacks bravery, was surely conclusively answered in Rome when he leaped to head that opening goal, injuring himself in the process but showing only raw determination to get to the ball no matter what. The fourth stick that Ronaldo has often been beaten with is that he is not a big-game player. This hoary old chestnut gained enthusiastic currency when he failed to make much impact at the San Siro last season in the Champions League semi-final against Milan. That tie also helped push Kaka's claims ahead of Ronaldo's. But since then, Ronaldo has consistently delivered when it mattered, up to and including last night. Indeed, he has answered his critics emphatically since then, scoring ten in his last 11 appearances in the Champions League, including crucial winning strikes against Sporting Lisbon (twice), Lyon and now Roma. That latest strike made him the current top scorer in this season's tournament. Meanwhile, Kaka has struggled to deliver this season, not only in Serie A where Milan have endured a difficult time, but also in the Champions League. In the two games against Arsenal, the Brazilian star was effectively eclipsed, or at least marginalised, by the likes of Cesc Fabregas and Mathieu Flamini. In contrast, Ronaldo has consistently stood up to be counted - and then delivered - whenever United have needed him to this season. Like him or loathe him, right now there is not a better player in the world than Cristiano Ronaldo. So perhaps it's time to throw our hands up and admit it. And perhaps it's time for the polls outside of England to reflect it. Graham Lister

In the case of sperm, ATP energizes the tail. But it could also be used in nanorobots that do everything from activate drug-delivery pumps to manufacture missing enzymes necessary for healthy bodily functions.

worked with me ! :D

Whatcha waiting on? Stir Your World

As noted, an all white web page uses about 74 watts to display, while an all black page uses only 59 watts. I thought I would do a little math and see what could be saved by moving a high volume site to the black format.Take at look at Google, who gets about 200 million queries a day. Let's assume each query is displayed for about 10 seconds; that means Google is running for about 550,000 hours every day on some desktop. Assuming that users run Google in full screen mode, the shift to a black background will save a total of 15 (74-59) watts. That turns into a global savings of 8.3 Megawatt-hours per day, or about 3000 Megawatt-hours a year. Now take into account that about 25 percent of the monitors in the world are CRTs, and at 10 cents a kilowatt-hour, that's $75,000, a goodly amount of energy and dollars for changing a few color codes.[ed. This got Dugg. The link to the wattage for different colors is from EnergyStar.][ed. There's a follow up as well.][ed. And now there's a FAQ too! 7/28/2007.]