Got emprical evidence to prove it??
Which Olympic athelete? Athletics covers a very wide range. There is a huge difference between the kind of endurance strength that F1 drivers have to have to cope with the G-forces and the cardio vascular fitness required by marathon or even 1500 meter runners.. F1 drivers are essentially not moving, their cardio vascular system gets bugger all strain on it compared to runners and cyclists for example. Some of their muscles however have to put up with sustained strain to relatively significant levels. The only reason F1 drivers have to be physically fit is to be able to cope with the significant fluid loss due to the hot environment, to cope with the G-forces on their neck and limbs and to be remain mentally alert throughout the race given those stresses. It's not a kind of fitness that is readily comparible with any form of athletics or sports.
And you'd know that how exactly??? Driven both?? Either?? or anything even remotely close to either??
The old cars may not have pulled the G-Forces that modern F1 cars are capable of but that doesn't automatically mean they were less demanding to drive.
Fair point, I hearby withdraw it as evidence of man on the moon
In science there is a general principle called Occam's Razor which essentially boils down to "the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one".
It has actually been used to argue that the moon landings didn't happen. ie Wouldn't it have just been easier to do it in a studio than actually involve 400,000 people in a project to get man on the moon?
Based in part at least that it would be relatively easy to have the handful of people involved in the faking of the landing to keep quiet.
But think about it for a minute. Flip that idea on it's head. You have NASA claiming that hundreds of companies and their employees provided services and parts as part of the project and the "studio hoax" would mean none of those companies/people had any need to be involved. So what would NASA have to do in order to fool the world? Well for starters it would have to persuade all those companies and their employees in some way to go along with the "hoax" and say that yes they did provide services etc to NASA and produce, (ie fake), all the documentation to prove it. So all of a sudden we're left with the situation where if the landings were fake hundreds of thousands of people would have to be keeping quiet about it, (or at the very least a few hundred ex top execs and senior managers from the companies involved). Plus of course the couple of hundred NASA employees themselves. Likely that in 40 years not one of them has ever spoken out to the media about it??
But of course, the project was real, the world saw the launch on TV, it was witnessed live. There is footage of the earth from space, (which would have been found out by now as being fakes). So clearly NASA did put 3 guys in a rocket and blast them off the earth. What do the "hoax" theorists propose they did for 4 days up there?? They circled the earth right? Well what about the "moon" rocks they brought back? Fake? So all the scientists and geologists etc that have analysed those rocks in the last 40 years are either dumb, or in on the hoax?? Maybe they went there but never landed? So what about the reflectors they placed on it? Well they could have just dropped them on to the moon. Sure, but how many attempts at doing that at several thousand mile per hour and at a height of a few hundred miles are going to result in a perfectly aligned reflector pointing directly back at the earth??
Then lets get to the actual act of creating the fake. Are we all meant to believe that NASA has the capabilities to fake such things when the best special effects departments in the film industry were clearly unable to at the time?? For evidence of that inability, I give you every 60's and 70's space film ever made.
Finally I give you all the rebuffs of the so called evidence of the faking of the landings. Some of examples of which have been linked to already.
Add it all up................ I give you Occam's Razor.
It has actually been used to argue that the moon landings didn't happen. ie Wouldn't it have just been easier to do it in a studio than actually involve 400,000 people in a project to get man on the moon?
Based in part at least that it would be relatively easy to have the handful of people involved in the faking of the landing to keep quiet.
But think about it for a minute. Flip that idea on it's head. You have NASA claiming that hundreds of companies and their employees provided services and parts as part of the project and the "studio hoax" would mean none of those companies/people had any need to be involved. So what would NASA have to do in order to fool the world? Well for starters it would have to persuade all those companies and their employees in some way to go along with the "hoax" and say that yes they did provide services etc to NASA and produce, (ie fake), all the documentation to prove it. So all of a sudden we're left with the situation where if the landings were fake hundreds of thousands of people would have to be keeping quiet about it, (or at the very least a few hundred ex top execs and senior managers from the companies involved). Plus of course the couple of hundred NASA employees themselves. Likely that in 40 years not one of them has ever spoken out to the media about it??
But of course, the project was real, the world saw the launch on TV, it was witnessed live. There is footage of the earth from space, (which would have been found out by now as being fakes). So clearly NASA did put 3 guys in a rocket and blast them off the earth. What do the "hoax" theorists propose they did for 4 days up there?? They circled the earth right? Well what about the "moon" rocks they brought back? Fake? So all the scientists and geologists etc that have analysed those rocks in the last 40 years are either dumb, or in on the hoax?? Maybe they went there but never landed? So what about the reflectors they placed on it? Well they could have just dropped them on to the moon. Sure, but how many attempts at doing that at several thousand mile per hour and at a height of a few hundred miles are going to result in a perfectly aligned reflector pointing directly back at the earth??
Then lets get to the actual act of creating the fake. Are we all meant to believe that NASA has the capabilities to fake such things when the best special effects departments in the film industry were clearly unable to at the time?? For evidence of that inability, I give you every 60's and 70's space film ever made.
Finally I give you all the rebuffs of the so called evidence of the faking of the landings. Some of examples of which have been linked to already.
Add it all up................ I give you Occam's Razor.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Exactly the kind of motorcycle footage I abhor. What is the obsession with crashing? Are people unable to get excited about something unless there's a chance someone might be hurt?
I don't know maybe you have to have ridden a bike to get a feel for just how hard racers are pushing even when to the laymans eye nothing "exciting" is seemingly going on.
When you know what even a minor wiggle actually feels like on a bike, (which btw wouldn't even be noticed by an external observer), then it gives a new respect/perspective to when you see guys come out of corners back end squirming around and front wheel in the air.Actually, you don't need a licence to watch anything but live "real time" broadcasts of BBC content over the internet, and the only place you'll find those are on the BBC website itself. All recorded content, such as iPlayer stuff, I think you'll find is completely free anyway.
At least that was the case last time I checked.
Also on Intrepids point. I have some sympathy with OAPs not having to pay the license fee, but as it stands the law is the law and so in that respect "little old ladies" should be treated just like anyone else. Though admittedly it's really not very good publicity for the likes of the BBC to persue such cases IMO.
That said my point still stands that British TV in general and the BBC in particular do have very high production standards in comparison with other TV outputs around the world. As I said originally, I'm not talking about the content. That will always be a subjective issue. Personally however, I think it's often a lot better than the "independants" alternatives.
I know this is old, (and probably linked to in this thread already :razz
, but I must admit I found it rather humorous:
http://vids.myspace.com/index. ... dual&videoid=25814492
, but I must admit I found it rather humorous:http://vids.myspace.com/index. ... dual&videoid=25814492
Spoken like someone with little or no experience of the TV of other countries??
Having seen what other coutries put out for TV broadcast in terms of content and professionalism I actually find it quite difficult to fault British TV. When you realise just how amatuerish the TV production output of even other "rich" nations is in comparison it almost makes British TV look like good value for money.
Having said that I have noticed that standards are slipping, (and I'm talking production values here not content), with such things as audio levels being way out of wack between programming and breaks (particularly advert breaks on ITV etc), more frequent misqueing issues and incorrect "labling" of who is on the screen during news broadcasts etc.
Generally speaking however I would much rather watch British TV just for its production quality alone. None (or very little) of the loud, brash and gareish presenting, advertising and programme production as seen in so many other nations TV output.
Nice Vid.
Hmm.. Interesting comments so far. Only thing I will add is that parent/child relationships change significantly over time, especially as you yourself hit middle age and your parents become more frustrating to deal with as they age. When you've experienced that for yourself, the vid takes on a different perspective.
Hmm.. Interesting comments so far. Only thing I will add is that parent/child relationships change significantly over time, especially as you yourself hit middle age and your parents become more frustrating to deal with as they age. When you've experienced that for yourself, the vid takes on a different perspective.
Let me ask you this. How do you KNOW he didn't check his mirrors??
Simple answer is you DONT. You are ASSUMING he didn't because he got in your way. It is very clear from all your statements that you have VERY LITTLE driving experience.
And with regard to your "know it all" comment. Well I quite clearly know a hell of a lot more about road safety than you do. But then you are a child, so your idiotic and immature comprehension of the scenario in that video shouldn't surprise me in the least.
I'll state it again, it is IRRELEVANT what the speed limit is on a road. The fact that there was no speed limit on that section of road does NOT make your friend in the right to just drive at any speed he wants.
Safe to overtake? you actually have the gaul to make that accusation of the other driver?? How about it not being safe for your friend to overtake at 50mph more than every other road user?
If you want to get in to purile arguments about "rights" then there is no LOWER speed limit on motorways, so you can just as stupidly argue that somone has the right to drive at 30mph on a motorway. There are no defined speeds on any of the lanes so by extension, you can argue they have every RIGHT to be driving in the outside lane at 30mph too.
The simple FACT is, your freind was driving with NO CARE AT ALL for what other road users were doing on the road and and nearly paid the price for his stupidity by getting involved in a (probably fatal) collision.
You are wrong. End of discussion.
It's not called the fast lane so that people can drive so fast that others need to look in their wing mirrors for over 30 seconds in order to be able to see someone traveling at such speed coming up the ouside rather than looking ahead of them like they should be.
and oh yes I have been on the autobhan.. on several occasions .. and yes in a fast car on at least one occasion..
My point still stands. You are an idiot if you drive so much faster than everyone else around you on the road. Sure if there is a clear bit of motorway drive as fast as you like but if you approach people who are in the middle lane, (especially if there are other cars ahead of them), you should slow down to a speed where they would at least have a chance to see you in their mirrors if they wanted to change lane. It's called common sense. If you think it's safe or in anyway ok to fly past people at 50mph + on any road then you seriously should not be driving.
Reminds me of the time when a bunch of us were sat round a table in a Scottish "hotel" bar figuring out if we could buy a "geen monster". It came down to if they had one particular ingredient. The look on the barman/owners face was a picture when the girl we sent up to the bar to enquire said "Do you have blue bols??"
Everything is relative, and that includes money. $25million is peanuts to some people. How much of their income does the average family spend on a car?? average car is probably about half a years average persons salary in this country. So if you were someone like Elton John for example $25m is a drop in the ocean of your $500m fortune.
Now much as I think it's a beautiful car, I really can't see me spending $25million on it unless I had enough money to do all the other things I would prefer to do first. Definitely if I "only" had $25million I do in fact know of some Islands in Brazil I would rather buy for considerably less.
Now much as I think it's a beautiful car, I really can't see me spending $25million on it unless I had enough money to do all the other things I would prefer to do first. Definitely if I "only" had $25million I do in fact know of some Islands in Brazil I would rather buy for considerably less.
Opps , I stand corrected. I humbly appologise to the whole Scottish nation... hold on .. there's no such thing !
Oh yeah.. it isn't the person driving at least 50% faster than everybody else that's at fault at all is it??
There may be very high or no speed limits on certain roads but that don't mean its safe to just drive at any speed you like.
Simple really, if you drive so much faster than other road users, (irrespective of the legality of it), you are the moron not them.
Well if Kendel mint cake is the best you lot can do, I think we'll survive.
That and the fact its taken this long for even the "oh so talented" Vettel n Webber to surpass him and knock him out of second place in the championship.
Truely the performance of an "average" driver right?
I think he has some right to be frustrated in all honesty. He has been on the recieving end of two fuel rig issues, which are so rare in F1 these days that you can only come to the conclusion that someone just doesn't care enough about Barrichello being supported properly. He's been on the recieving end of two changes of strategy that favoured his team mate and he wasn't put on the same strategy. And he's in a team with a head that he knows, (because he's worked for him before remember), is biased about his drivers and believes in team orders, even if they are strictly speaking against the rules. Given all that, which has only happened to him this season and that he never had any such "issues" back under Honda, (same team members??), it's not at all surprising that he's a little miffed.
So he wont be the only No.2 that Schumacher ever had that had the ability to actually beat him on occasions then??. Yeah, he's always been such a crap driver
. Plus, I'd be very interested to see where Button would be right now if Barrichello wasn't his team mate and all his insight in to how to set a car up, which strangely enough Button doesn't seem to have despite being just as experienced an F1 driver as Barrichello.Sorry, Barrichello just has a tendency to wear his emotions on his sleeve on occasion. I really don't see how anyone can fault him for that. Personally I find it refreshing and would much rather that the sport was made up of people like him than corporate ice men that don't have the guts or whatever to speak their mind, and are usually total arrogant pr!cks with it. At least Rubens is a genuinely nice guy, he is well liked throughout the paddock and sport in general for being so.
I suppose F1 would be so much better if the drivers were just a bunch of yes men who all just followed their team orders and never spoke up about their frustrations. Better they just shut up right, given how much money they are being paid? Because of course paying someone means that you own them right??
Don't know much about the history of the British Isles then??
The British Isles is probably one of the most "invaded" places in Europe. Thats excluding modern history where we've actively encouraged diversity, starting with inviting people from the caribbean to settle here in the 50s. If there is a nation with more claim to gene diversity in Europe than the UK I'd like to know which. Certainly there isn't another country in Europe that has been so accepting of immigrants than the UK, (and I don't mean that in any negative way).
Better than waiting all that time and being diagnosed with a life threatening illness that should have been treated 5 hours ago in order to save your life !!
PSML.. well spotted Mr Holmes !!
So Nerrr !!
and I was about to call you a pedant !!
wow so many points to comment on .. so I'll just mention a few...
Humans may not be more important than other species of animal but we most definitely are superior. We have traits and characteristics that allow us to achieve things of which no other animal is capable.
We do not control natural selection, what we can control is our immediate environment to a relatively small degree. This may well have altered the course of human evolution but it is by no means under our control.
Law is to a large extent defined by the society to which it belongs and is also heavily informed by the "moral" framework of that society.
Is Morality relative? well that depends on which phylosophy you tend towards. Satre for example was a believer of Moral Relativism. Then there is Moral Nihilism and Moral Utilitarianism and many other takes on the meaning of Morality.
Lastly, the probability of other life existing somewhere in the universe is increasing day by day as we find proof of extrasolar planetary systems in our own galaxy. To date 353 such Exoplanets have been discovered. http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/
Humans may not be more important than other species of animal but we most definitely are superior. We have traits and characteristics that allow us to achieve things of which no other animal is capable.
We do not control natural selection, what we can control is our immediate environment to a relatively small degree. This may well have altered the course of human evolution but it is by no means under our control.
Law is to a large extent defined by the society to which it belongs and is also heavily informed by the "moral" framework of that society.
Is Morality relative? well that depends on which phylosophy you tend towards. Satre for example was a believer of Moral Relativism. Then there is Moral Nihilism and Moral Utilitarianism and many other takes on the meaning of Morality.
Lastly, the probability of other life existing somewhere in the universe is increasing day by day as we find proof of extrasolar planetary systems in our own galaxy. To date 353 such Exoplanets have been discovered. http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/
Last edited by gezmoor, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG