Chelsea target Radamel Falcao’s dive at the Copa America while playing for Colombia was, frankly, embarrassing.The 29-year-old, who endured a disastrous loan spell with Manchester United last season, went down like a sack of spuds after minimal contact from a Peru defender.However, the referee didn’t buy the out-of-form striker’s theatrics one bit.Instead, he had to get to his feet nursing an apparent facial injury, despite clearly being caught on his chest.Better luck next time, Radamel.Still, after the west Londoners received more cautions for simulation than any other Premier League side last season, maybe Falcao’s heading to the right place this summer? 1 VIDEO: Chelsea target Radamel Falcao guilty of embarrassing dive at the Copa America
An article on Science Daily announced an invention that is “Better Than the Human Eye: Tiny Camera With Adjustable Zoom Could Aid Endoscopic Imaging, Robotics, Night Vision.” While true that human eyes do not have zoom lenses, how does the comparison hold up? The invention both imitates and surpasses human vision in some respects: “Researchers from Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are the first to develop a curvilinear camera, much like the human eye, with the significant feature of a zoom capability, unlike the human eye.” They even call it an “eyeball camera.” PhysOrg shows a picture of the device, which “has a 3.5x optical zoom, takes sharp images and is only the size of a nickel.” Previous research by this team, who had “drawn inspiration from animals,” had shown the optical benefits of curved photodetector arrays (08/07/2008). This time they have upped the ante by controlling the curvature with hydraulics. Both the simple lens and the photodetector array can have their curvature adjusted by water pressure, allowing for variable zoom. “We were inspired by the human eye, but we wanted to go beyond the human eye,” said Yonggang Huang at Northwestern. “Our goal was to develop something simple that can zoom and capture good images, and we’ve achieved that.” Does the original paper boast about this being an improvement over the eyeball? In PNAS,1 Jung et al began by saying, “Mammalian eyes provide the biological inspiration for hemispherical cameras, where Petzval-matched curvature in the photodetector array can dramatically simplify lens design without degrading the field of view, focal area, illumination uniformity, or image quality.” Camera makers have already gone beyond nature by inventing zoom lenses: “Interestingly, biology and evolution2 do not provide guides for achieving the sort of large-range, adjustable zoom capabilities that are widely available in man-made cameras.” The authors took note of two cases in biology where animals have a kind of binary zoom: (1) “in avian vision, where shallow pits in the retina lead to images with two fixed levels of zoom (50% high magnification in the center of the center of the field of view),” and (2) “imaging properties occur, but in an irreversible fashion, during metamorphosis in amphibian vision to accommodate transitions from aquatic to terrestrial environments.” (Recall a related capability in cormorant eyes, 05/24/2004). The “eyeball camera,” however, unlike animal eyes, would be capable of continuous zoom. The new invention is admittedly simple. Its resolution is only 16 x 16 pixels, compared to the human retina’s resolution of 126 megapixels (100 million rods 07/13/2001 and 6-7 million cones). So as interesting as their device is, there is a huge disparity between what they achieved and what we take for granted with human vision (by almost six orders of magnitude in resolution and probably a similar amount in light-gathering power). It is, however, an important proof of concept: “Although the fill factor and total pixel count in the reported designs are moderate, there is nothing fundamental about the process that prevents significant improvements,” they concluded. The concepts they have demonstrated in this prototype “might be useful to explore.”1. Jung et al, “Dynamically tunable hemispherical electronic eye camera system with adjustable zoom capability,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print January 18, 2011, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1015440108.2. This was the only mention of evolution in the paper.More power to this team and to all inventors inspired by biology. Even if they succeed in improving on the eye some day, they will have supported intelligent design through and through. Reverse engineering pays a compliment to the designer of what is being imitated. In spite of their passing reference to evolution, their work has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin – you know, the old storyteller who got cold shudders thinking of the design of the human eye – and that was without knowing about its ideal optics (05/09/2002), waveguides (05/07/2010), clean-up crews (08/28/2003), image processing (05/22/2003), and much, much more. “Biology and evolution do not provide guides,” they said. Of course not; evolution is unguided. It would be the blind leading the blind, so ditch the thought. Human ingenuity can and does exceed biology all the time. No animals explore space, or resolve distant quasars, or image the molecular motors in their own cells with X-ray diffraction. God gave humans the minds and hands to expand their biological capabilities. If scientists can invent eyeball-mimic cameras with zoom lenses, all for the good. If they can get them to take high-def 3-D video at 126 megapixel resolution, repair themselves, reproduce themselves and run on potatoes, then we might consider them starting to come a little closer to a few of the engineering specs of the One who made “the seeing eye” (Proverbs 20:12). Even such devices, though, would be useless without an even more complex brain to interpret them and to understand what it is they are seeing. Let’s not be numbered among those who, having eyes, do not see (Mark 8:18).(Visited 29 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
The default religion of secularism has fallen from grace.America is quickly following Europe’s descent from Christian roots to secularism. A National Geographic feature calls the newest religion to be “no religion.” A quarter of the population are religiously unaffiliated, the article reports, answering “none” when asked what religion they espouse. And why? What is the one of the largest reasons for the shift?If the world is at a religious precipice, then we’ve been moving slowly toward it for decades. Fifty years ago, Time asked in a famous headline, “Is God Dead?” The magazine wondered whether religion was relevant to modern life in the post-atomic age when communism was spreading and science was explaining more about our natural world than ever before….Scientific advancement isn’t just making people question God, it’s also connecting those who question. It’s easy to find atheist and agnostic discussion groups online, even if you come from a religious family or community. And anyone who wants the companionship that might otherwise come from church can attend a secular Sunday Assembly or one of a plethora of Meetups for humanists, atheists, agnostics, or skeptics.The presumptive authority of science, and its appearance of being able to explain reality, drives much of the trend toward secularism. But is science a false god?“Big Science is broken” shouts a headline on April 18 by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry in The Week. “That’s the thesis of a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that’s not even the worst part.” Both articles present devastating critiques of science that should be required reading before continuing here. Science is not only failing to live up to its ideals; it’s incapable of doing so. It is not self-correcting. It does not have a superior methodology. It’s not reliable, and many of its claims are downright false. In theory and in practice, Gobry and Wilson show, science is a broken reed to lean on.Even Nature joined in singing the dirge of science, undermining one of its greatest claims to reliability. “Peer review is broken from the start,” the headline reads in a piece recounting the history of peer review starting with William Whewell. Did you know that peer review was never a rock-solid practice, and is of rather recent invention?‘Peer review’ was a term borrowed from the procedures that government agencies used to decide who would receive financial support for scientific and medical research. When ‘referee systems’ turned into ‘peer review’, the process became a mighty public symbol of the claim that these powerful and expensive investigators of the natural world had procedures for regulating themselves and for producing consensus, even though some observers quietly wondered whether scientific referees were up to this grand calling.Current attempts to reimagine peer review rightly debate the psychology of bias, the problem of objectivity, and the ability to gauge reliability and importance, but they rarely consider the multilayered history of this institution. Peer review did not develop simply out of scientists’ need to trust one another’s research. It was also a response to political demands for public accountability. To understand that other practices of scientific judgement were once in place ought to be a part of any responsible attempt to chart a future path. The imagined functions of this institution are in flux, but they were never as fixed as many believe.And that’s one of the milder critiques of peer review that have been written in recent years. Some scientists view it as a kind of good-old-boy’s club that keeps young mavericks out of getting published. Others claim that the only reviewers in some narrow fields are an author’s rivals, who have a vested interest in either stealing ideas or preventing them from getting exposure. And peer review often fails to catch even simple errors.New Scientist to the rescue! “Science isn’t as solid as it should be – but science can fix it” reads their headline. Is this the fox guarding the henhouse, or the pigs vowing to reform Animal Farm? Visualize the pigs reporting to a worried press:If there is a sub-prime problem in science, then scientists are doing their best to fix it before it brings the whole edifice down. Unlike those politicians or bankers, they are not turning a blind eye, covering their own backsides or simply hoping to get away with it.I.e., we promise to do better. This is not comforting, coming from the very people who created the crisis in the first place.Are scientists different from other people? New Scientist just said that science is like any other walk of life, with its share of bad apples. But another myth is that scientists are qualitatively different from other people, like artists. David Pearson on The Conversation explodes that myth. How long has that false dichotomy led to misconceptions about the scientific mind?Teaching falsehoods: Indications are growing that neo-Darwinism is on the way out. In “The evolution of teaching evolution,” Melissa McCartney in Science Magazine warns that science education based on natural selection alone is not with the times; “other evolutionary processes” need to be added, but students are not getting those in the curriculum. More importantly, Science Magazine reports that a big new grant from the Templeton Foundation has been awarded for an “evolution rethink,” implying that neo-Darwinism has its own missing links. If so, what has been taught dogmatically since the Scopes Trial 90 years ago is flawed. Elizabeth Pennisi reports on the emotional reaction of Darwinians to threats their pet theory is not the whole shebang. How rational is this response?For many evolutionary biologists, nothing gets their dander up faster than proposing that evolution is anything other than the process of natural selection, acting on random mutations. Suggestions that something is missing from that picture—for example, that evolution is somehow directed or that genetic changes can’t fully explain it—play into the hands of creationists, who leap on them as evidence against evolution itself.No wonder some evolutionary biologists are uneasy with an $8.7 million grant to U.K., Swedish, and U.S. researchers for experimental and theoretical work intended to put a revisionist view of evolution, the so-called extended evolutionary synthesis, on a sounder footing. Using a variety of plants, animals, and microbes, the researchers will study the possibility that organisms can influence their own evolution and that inheritance can take place through routes other than the genetic material.Are scientists closer in touch with reality? Are they more logical than other people? Read about the views of cognitive scientist David Hoffman on Quanta Magazine. In “The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality” Amanda Gefter treats his self-refuting view with soft gloves. The guy “uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.” If we are all evolved, we have no way to connect with reality, he argues. We live in a world of illusion, and “we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction.” Did he think that through? How did he escape his own illusion to tell us about ours?He refutes his own thesis in another way. Here is his magnificent rebuttal of so-called “evolutionary epistemology,” the notion that natural selection drove us to connect with reality for our own survival fitness.The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.Did he think that one through? This means that he has no way of justifying what he just said about what evolution did. According to his own words, there cannot be any “fundamental fact about evolution” whatsoever. It’s all illusion. To pretend he can step outside of his own illusion and speak any fact at all about science, evolution or his own consciousness, he would have to be diagnosed with a severe case of the Yoda complex delusion.This is the logic of someone who celebrates science. Hoffman, a self-professed son of a minister, left theism for this: nothing is real, except for his own experience. For all he knows, aliens could be operating his brain in a vat. Asked what this means for science, he answers:The idea that what we’re doing is measuring publicly accessible objects, the idea that objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object in the exact same situation and get the same results — it’s very clear from quantum mechanics that that idea has to go. Physics tells us that there are no public physical objects. So what’s going on? Here’s how I think about it. I can talk to you about my headache and believe that I am communicating effectively with you, because you’ve had your own headaches. The same thing is true as apples and the moon and the sun and the universe. Just like you have your own headache, you have your own moon. But I assume it’s relevantly similar to mine. That’s an assumption that could be false, but that’s the source of my communication, and that’s the best we can do in terms of public physical objects and objective science.He blames science itself for this conclusion. But if it is so, how can Hoffman even know that quantum mechanics dictates that there are no publicly accessible objects? Worse, how can he claim that science is “the best we can do”? None of these words have any meaning if his view is taken seriously. Everything is nonsense disconnected from reality, a meaningless chain of personal experiences. It reduces to solipsism, the bitter end of secular science.For you “nones” out there, you atheists and agnostics who have been worshiping Darwin at the altar of science, you need some serious, serious deprogramming. The only thing that makes science possible is realism that can be defended ontologically as the reliable perception of a mind. Mind cannot emerge from particles. It requires a prior cause similar to, but greater than, the human mind, that is reliable and truthful. Theism is, therefore, the necessary foundation for science, as so many great scientists believed. And not just any theism will do: the Creator must be truthful, moral, and unchanging. That leaves you few options. Science without the God who is Real, who created us and our world, who endowed us with rational thought, implodes on itself. Only Bible believers can justify science. Everyone else is in dreamland. Follow the map back to the real world.(Visited 55 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
The racePhelps took it out fast over the first 50 metres and led Le Clos by 0.09 seconds as they turned. At 100 metres, he had extended his advantage to 0.27 seconds. With 50 metres to go, at the last turn, Le Clos had slipped to third behind Phelps and Matsuda, 0.58 seconds behind the American. South Africa’s Chad le Clos stunned 200 metres butterfly king Michael Phelps in London on Tuesday night, snatching gold to end the American legend’s attempt to win a third successive Olympic title in his signature event. Would you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See: Using SAinfo material Anxiously looking towards the scoreboard afterwards, Le Clos saw the amazing result and joyously smashed the water with his fist before letting out a loud yell of triumph. He pointed towards the crowd to acknowledge his mother and father and the South African support. Once the music stopped, Le Clos’ face broke into a wide grin. His father, with a South African flag draped around his head, used it to dab away tears, his mother mouthed: “I love you.” And South Africa celebrated another wonderful victory in the swimming pool at the 2012 London Olympic Games. Phelps, the most successful Olympian in history, with 15 gold medals and 19 medals in total after the evening’s programme (he later won gold in the 4 by 200m freestyle relay), had won every Olympic Games and World Championships 200 metres butterfly title for over a decade. “I can’t believe I beat him in the final. It is something that I’ve lived over in my mind a million times. I’m still shocked that I’ve won. I can’t believe it.” 1 August 2012 In the final, those three men, swimming in the lanes three, four, and five battled it out for the title. The scale of his achievementThen it seemed to hit him as the scale of his achievement began to make sense. Le Clos shook his head in wide-eyed disbelief, holding his head in his hands for a moment. Tears welled in his eyes. For the 20-year-old South African, a dream had come true and he had beaten his hero. Le Clos had entered the Olympics, acknowledging that Rio 2016 would probably be where he would be able to best challenge for Olympic medals. Suddenly, he had beaten the most successful Olympian of all time in that man’s strongest event! “It’s a dream come true. Michael Phelps is an idol to me and he still is,” Le Clos said after the race. ‘WHAT A FINISH!!!’South Africa’s other golden boy, 100 metres breaststroke champion Cameron van der Burgh, who wrote on Twitter before the race: “More nervous for Chad’s race than mine!!! Come on my boy!!!”, followed that posting up with “CHAD LE CLOS!!!!!!! WHAT A FINISH!!!” “It’s crazy!” he added. Le Clos was the second fastest qualifier for the final after setting an African record of 1:54.34 in the semi-finals. Japan’s Takeshi Matsuda, a bronze medal winner in the 200m butterfly in Beijing four years earlier, was fastest in 1:54.25. Phelps, meanwhile, won his semi-final in 1:54.53. Later, standing on top of the Olympic podium, gold medal around his neck, Le Clos struggled to sing the national anthem as tears filled his eyes. No worry, he had plenty of South African supporters singing it full of gusto as they celebrated his superb victory. Phelps came up just short of the wall with his stroke and Le Clos burst past to out-touch him in 1:52.96 to shatter his previous best time, which he had set in the semi-finals. Phelps finished in 1:53.01 and Matsuda in 1:53.21. The chasing pair fought back hard, however, and in the last 25 metres Le Clos and Matsuda closed on the great American with a furious finish.
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Chris ClaytonDTN Ag Policy EditorOMAHA (DTN) — China will again increase tariffs on U.S. agricultural products as part of an announcement Friday by China’s government to raise tariffs on $75 billion in U.S. products.Again caught in the middle of the trade battle between the two countries are soybeans, which will face a 5% higher tariff starting Sept. 1, Reuters and Bloomberg first reported Friday. That will put soybean tariffs at 30%. Pork and beef will face 10% higher tariffs as well on Sept. 1.If the new tariffs go into effect, U.S. pork would face a 60% retaliatory tariff along with a 12% standard duty from China.The tariff hike is a blow for U.S. pork producers, which had seen rising sales to China. The pork industry also has been anticipating even more demand from China because of African swine fever devastating China’s hog herd.The National Pork Producers Council stated Friday, “Any escalation in the trade dispute with China is a major concern to U.S. pork producers. China, the largest pork-consuming nation in the world, is seeking reliable sources of pork as it deals with African swine fever. There is no more reliable source than the United States. Unfortunately, due to the current trade dispute, we are not able to fully participate in this opportunity.”Corn, sorghum and wheat also will be hit with 10% higher tariffs, but those will not begin until Dec. 15. Tariffs on those crops right now are 25%, and the U.S. has effectively been shut out of the market.Chinese officials announced the tariffs in a statement, pushing back on the Trump administration’s 10% tariff increase that will come in two rounds on $300 billion in Chinese goods starting Sept. 1 and Dec. 15.China also will hit the U.S. auto industry, with 25% tariffs on vehicles and a 5% tariffs on parts starting Dec. 15. China had put a hold on these auto tariffs in April.China’s government stated, “China’s adoption of tariff-adding measures is a forced move to deal with U.S. unilateralism and trade protectionism. The Chinese side once again reiterated that for China and the United States, cooperation is the only correct choice, and a win-win situation can lead to a better future.”The tariffs hit U.S. agriculture as farmer frustrations have risen over trade, the Trump administration’s handling of refinery waivers for biofuels, and a challenging crop year. Future prices for the November soybean and December corn contracts peaked in mid to late June and have steadily declined since then.With concerns of a possible U.S. recession, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell did not announce any specific possible steps Friday in a speech to other economists in Wyoming. The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates in July for the first time since 2008 over concerns that trade disputes could weaken the global economy.Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.comFollow him on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN(AG/SK)© Copyright 2019 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.
Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss PLAY LIST 02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games FEU Auditorium’s 70th year celebrated with FEU Theater Guild’s ‘The Dreamweavers’ National Coffee Research Development and Extension Center brews the 2nd National Coffee Education Congress Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Barangay Ginebra import Justin Brownlee (right) and Meralco’s Cliff Hodge battle for possession in Sunday’s PBA main game at Smart Araneta Coliseum. —AUGUST DELA CRUZMeralco certainly didn’t like the way things ended a year ago after Barangay Ginebra import Justin Brownlee finished their championship series with a game-winning three at the buzzer.Eager to get back at their tormentor, the Bolts downed the Gin Kings, 93-78, on sustained grit and hustle before an unfriendly crowd at Smart Araneta Coliseum Sunday.ADVERTISEMENT LATEST STORIES Robredo should’ve resigned as drug czar after lack of trust issue – Panelo In a rematch of last year’s finals of the PBA Governors Cup, Allen Durham efficiently worked in the lane and neutralized the damage that Ginebra’s twin towers of Greg Slaughter and Japeth Aguilar could possibly inflict as the Bolts again won with authority for the second consecutive game this conference.Last year’s Best Import lit up the stat sheets with 30 points, 24 rebounds and eight assists and got contributions from the energetic crew of Chris Newsome, Jared Dillinger and Cliff Hodge.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSWin or don’t eat: the Philippines’ poverty-driven, world-beating pool starsThe turning point came when the Bolts engineered a huge run in the third quarter, building as many as 19 before settling with a 15-point cushion that they protected until the final buzzer.Brownlee hardly contributed to turn the tide around and obviously wasn’t in his element in the opening match of the Kings, who are bidding for a back-to-back championship in the season-ending conference. Earlier, Star capitalized on Blackwater’s misery and opened their campaign with an emphatic 103-86 win.The Elite couldn’t nail their shots from afar and got roughed up in the lane. Worse, the team’s most consistent performer, import Trevis Simpson, was plagued by an injury at a time they needed him most.Simpson crumpled to the floor with almost a full quarter to go and the Hotshots wasted no time in dealing the lethal blows as center Ian Sangalang and PJ Simon conspired for the finishing kick.MERALCO 93—Durham 30, Dillinger 17, Newsome 16, Hodge 10, Amer 8, Hugnatan 5, Nabong 4, Lanete 3, Caram 0, Chua 0, Atkins 0, Faundo 0, Sedurifa 0.GINEBRA 78—Tenorio 16, Slaughter 14, Brownlee 13, Thompson 9, Mercado 8, Aguilar 6, Ellis 6, Marcelo 4, Taha 2, Mariano 0, Devance 0, Caguioa 0.Quarters: 21-32, 43-45, 72-57, 93-78ADVERTISEMENT Church, environmentalists ask DENR to revoke ECC of Quezon province coal plant Ethel Booba on hotel’s clarification that ‘kikiam’ is ‘chicken sausage’: ‘Kung di pa pansinin, baka isipin nila ok lang’ MOST READ Lacson: SEA Games fund put in foundation like ‘Napoles case’ Ceres-Negros extends winning run at home turf View comments Trump strips away truth with hunky topless photo tweet Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next El Nido residents told to vacate beach homes
View comments Fans reach for Utah Jazz center Rudy Gobert as he leaves the court following the team’s NBA basketball game against the Atlanta Hawks on Friday, Feb. 1, 2019, in Salt Lake City. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)Utah Jazz center Rudy Gobert was in tears Friday after being snubbed for even a reserve spot in this year’s NBA All-Star Game despite a standout campaign.The 26-year-old French 7-footer (2.16m) is this year’s most accurate NBA shooter, connecting on 65% of shots from the floor, and has had a strong follow up to last season’s Defensive Player of the Year honors.ADVERTISEMENT US judge bars Trump’s health insurance rule for immigrants Oil plant explodes in Pampanga town SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte LATEST STORIES PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games PLAY LIST 02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss With NBA coaches making the call on backup players, Gobert felt especially insulted at his defensive efforts being unrewarded, even knowing the all-star matchup is typically a score-fest with half-hearted defensive work.“I think it’s disrespectful. I feel disrespected,” Gobert said. “It’s disrespectful not only toward me but toward the team, the organization and toward the game.“Because all the coaches preach about defense. Every day they talk about defense, they talk about how important it is to get stops in order to win basketball games.“And when it’s time to vote, they don’t reward the best defensive player in the world.”Gobert said he resisted the urge to take his displeasure to Twitter but Utah Jazz president Steve Starks did not, tweeting: “Rudy deserved to be named an All-Star. Complete non-sense and we need more integrity and accountability. If the coaches vote then their ballots should be made public.”ADVERTISEMENT But he waited in vain Thursday night to hear his name when the list of reserve players for the February 17 NBA All-Star Game in Charlotte was announced.“My mom called me crying,” Gobert said in a posting on the club website. “It was tough.”FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSUrgent reply from Philippine football chiefSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption chargesGobert turned off his television and admitted Friday he felt disrespected and frustrated by the all-star snub.“I was surprised,” he said. “We all know how the league works, the direction the league is heading to. I thought there was a chance I might not make it, but just surprised.” ‘We are too hospitable,’ says Sotto amid SEA Games woes Towns crier: Timberwolves big man emotional over NBA All-Star honor Grace Poe files bill to protect govt teachers from malicious accusations Jazz GM ‘disgusted’Jazz general manager Dennis Lindsey said he was “disgusted” and “flabbergasted” by the snub that upset Gobert so deeply.And Jazz guard Donovan Mitchell, averaging 22.5 points a game, tweeted to Gobert that “Together we will prevail big fella” with a hashtag of “robbed.”“The first year, it was OK. I was 24. It was my first year playing well. I thought maybe I have to make a name for myself, earn the respect,” Gobert said.“But I’ve won the Defensive Player of the Year. I should have two, by the way. All-NBA Second Team. And they still don’t give me that respect.“I’m always going to be about winning. I don’t want to be focused on those things. But at one point I’d still like to get that recognition.”Gobert says he would take an all-star nod as an injury replacement selection but added, “It’s not the same as being selected.”It also wouldn’t pay him the $1 million bonus Gobert would have had from being selected, but that means less, Gobert said, than how his career will be regarded once it’s done.“It’s my legacy,” Gobert said. “I don’t even play for money. I don’t care about that All-Star bonus, to be honest. It’s just about my legacy. Everything I do, I do it to win. It would be good if you could get some reward for that.” PDEA chief backs Robredo in revealing ‘discoveries’ on drug war Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting MOST READ Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. ‘We are too hospitable,’ says Sotto amid SEA Games woes