This isn't exactly a great answer to my question.
Source? This BBC news article suggests that the recent leak incident will result in an increase in the severity of the situation.
That's what people said about Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and there has been little evidence of serious long-term problems outside the immediate area. In the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident there were various doomsday predictions that large areas across Europe would be unfit for humans and would produce highly radioactive crops/meat for generations. Those predictions have really failed to materialise.
We have lived through Chernobyl though, as I mention above, so we do have a degree of historical data to draw on. Of course, the incidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima were not identical, but I find it difficult to believe that a largely localised release of relatively low level radiation into groundwater and possibly the ocean (as in Fukushima) will be worse than a large plume of highly radioactive gases that were released during the Chernobyl incident. Do you have a source for the 40% thyroid problems in Japanese children?
Well, targeted radiation can be good for the human body. Not only are radioactive sources used in various fields of medical imaging, but radiation therapy is commonly used to fight cancer in humans.
I never claimed Fukushima would be beneficial or even not harmful (I don't know if you're suggesting I said this or just wandering like you often do in your posts). I just think that using situations like Fukushima to justify scaling back nuclear power at a time when energy demand is increasing is a very dangerous strategy. Of course serious nuclear accidents pose a great danger to humans and we should do everything humanly possible to prevent them happening in the first place. Back to better long-term disaster planning, better regulators and better operators, eh?
Here's a challenge for you: calculate how many premature deaths were directly or indirectly caused by all nuclear power plants in human history. I'm talking about everything, including, but not limited to, acute radiation poisoning from severe leaks, cancers above the 'normal' rate in areas exposed to radiation and other chronic illnesses. I know your history, so I'll even let you use the version of events presented in the questionably supported 'documentary' "The Battle of Chernobyl" as part of your total count. You should use all accidents and everything from the normal running of all nuclear power plants in history up until this point.
Then tell me how many premature deaths were caused by coal power plants in the world last year.
To be clear, I'm asking you to compare all of our history concerning nuclear power with just one year worth of coal power.
Ultimately no source of power generation is 100% safe.
Again, these problems (which you're obviously exaggerating for effect) are mainly due to the short-sighted disaster planning and criminal negligence of TEPCO.
There's some truth in this statement, I'll grant you. The main reason is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of nuclear reactors which are currently in service or have been decommissioned in the past 20 years have been based on designs that are, at their core (pardon the pun), decades old and were not retro-fitted to include any of the significant improvements in design and monitoring which have been developed in the field. This is due to a combination of reasons, largely a mixture of cost, toothless regulators and operators who don't wish to spend money upgrading plants which really should have been decommissioned decades ago.
Partially true (see upgrade comment above re: operators), but it's a better situation than shutting down all currently active nuclear power stations in the world and plunging large parts of the developed world into darkness. If you shut down all nuclear power stations just now many countries would not be able to make up the deficit within any kind of reasonable timeframe. Additionally, renewable technologies are nowhere near ready at this time to replace nuclear power in any significant amount.
Haha! Well played, sir.
To be fair, Fukushima tells us a lot more about short-sighted disaster planning, inept regulators and criminally negligent operators than it does about the inherent dangers of nuclear power.
Good luck, Duck! 
(I'm a poet and I don't even know it).
(I'm a poet and I don't even know it).
Quick question: Why hasn't anyone created a Gran Turismo 6 thread yet?
In case anyone wonders this clip is from The Sketch Show (UK) and that particular sketch features Lee Mack and Tim Vine.
I think it's a point worth making though. The problem is that the coverage by the NASCAR commentators during road races makes it seem as though Ambrose was 'dominant' (read: head and shoulders above the competition) in V8 Supercars. This leads people watching NASCAR (who otherwise likely have very little or no information about V8 Supercars) to think that the rest of the field was demonstrably inferior in talent to Ambrose to a great extent. This wasn't the case and the field in V8 Supercars has (almost) always been one of the most competitive in the world, with a generally very high standard of driving. It's not unusual, for example, to have the top 20+ cars separated by less than a second in qualifying, even at demanding tracks. By simply saying that Ambrose was 'dominant' in V8 Supercars does a disservice to the fans of both series (NASCAR and V8 Supercars) and to the drivers (past and present) in V8 Supercars.
Only true if you redefine "dominant". As I said, it's very successful and very impressive, but it isn't dominant.
Successful, not dominant.
edit: Dominance in motorsport is when you win all (or very nearly all) events in a season by a considerable margin. See McLaren's 1988 F1 season, Mark Donohue's 917-30 championship winning season, Jim Clark's 1963 F1 season.
Last edited by amp88, .
He didn't 'dominate' V8 Supercars in either of his championship years. There's absolutely no doubt he was among the best drivers in the series at the time, but his performances in 2003-2004 shouldn't be described as domination. In 2003 he won 6/13 rounds and won the championship by 186 points (about 9% of his points total). In 2004 he won 11/26 races, finished 2nd in a further 4 and 3rd in a further 5. He won the championship by 238 points (about 11% of his points total). Compare these numbers to the 2002 championship winning performance by Mark Skaife. Skaife won 7/13 rounds and won the championship by 658 points (about 30% of his points total).
I'm not trying to minimise Ambrose's achievements in V8 Supercars at all. He was a great driver who was always at or near the front in good equipment. He also showed on a number of occasions that he was a thinking driver who had a degree of spare mental capacity available for strategy whilst driving as hard as necessary. He didn't 'dominate' V8s in 2003 or 2004 though.
...because those people above are mainstream porn stars. You can't take those standards and use them to generalise for "97%" of women. A lot of women do actually look great with either no make-up or a minimal amount, you know...
Incidentally, most of the above don't look very good in the 'after' pictures anyway (and, no, I'm not just trolling, they really don't...).
I'll be watching this race from a special location (no, not the track and definitely not in the toilets). Should be good anyway, though!
Hotlaps and Personal Best (PB) times are stored separately. Hotlaps can only be done in Hot lapping mode and PBs can only be done in Multiplayer mode.
Source? Also, a verbal commitment from a Governor isn't the same as a signed contract with all agreements in place (not that a signed contract is bulletproof either...).
Also because it doesn't have state support (it's a bit difficult to close down roads for a few hours each day of a 3 day event without support from the local authorities), plus there's still no real evidence of a significant US audience (sure, chicken and egg argument would counter that point, but some people would rather wait and see how Texas grows over the next few years before committing to a 2nd US-based round in case the support dwindles). You're only fooling yourself if you think the only real reason for this is that Bernie wasn't paid his cut on time. No-one really expected this race to happen, and when it slipped from the 2013 calendar that was a clear indication. I'm surprised they clung on this long, tbh.
Clearly. Vettel, for example, left the track on numerous occasions today at Turn 4 and gained a time advantage. I believe he set a fastest lap during the race (including a purple sector) on a lap where he exceeded track limits. I'm not saying everyone who leaves the track at any time should be penalised; just that the rules should be consistently applied.
From the Singapore 2012 thread. In that race Webber was penalised for the move on the Sauber (similar to Grosjean being penalised for the move on Massa in this race) and Massa got away without a problem cutting the track several times (similar to how Vettel has exceeded track limits several times in this race). Consistently bad decisions from the Stewards on these incidents, IMO.
Does "team boss" strictly mean Team Principal or could it include a position such as CEO/Chief Executive? Also, does "any of their drivers" mean any of the race (drivers who attempted to qualify the car) or does it include test/substitute drivers too?
I'm guessing you mean a car entered under a different set of regulations (such as F2), rather than a car that was built to F1 regulations but was actually illegal (such as having brake ducts which were too large or some other technical infringement)?
If so, I'm gonna take a shot with the 1969 German GP, with a number of F2 entrants. Since there are so many of them I won't list them all (this also makes me suspect I'm way off, since your question seems to suggest there would only have been one car). Might be off by some way, but let's get the ball rolling...
This doesn't make any sense. Steering wheels and coffee tables (or whatever the wheel is connected to) typically don't display the information that the sim car's wheel/dashboard do. Sure, there are slight exceptions (such as the G27 displaying shift lights and gear), but having dials with rpm, gear indicator and other displays (including the rear-view camera that will appear on a number of cars in AC and is visible on the above 458 video) just makes sense. If the sim car's wheel has information your wheel can't display then you should use it. I appreciate this is personal choice, but denying yourself information that you should have access to (i.e. that you would have if you were actually driving the sim car) because you don't want to see 2 wheels or a dashboard is an indefensible position if you wish to have others accept it.
The lack of IS (for video usage) is one thing that has stopped me from doing so. Also, the 40mm f2.8 pancake might be a better option (yes, it's slower and a bit more expensive than the 50 1.8, but it should provide significantly better image quality) in that (relatively) cheap non-IS standard-ish (though not really, considering I'll be using it on a ~1.6 crop camera) lens area. The 40mm 2.8 also has the STM which should provide better AF performance compared to the 50mm 1.8. Certainly something to think about though.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG