Punctuation meaningless? I'll tell you what's meaningless about punctuation. A sentence is meaningless without it. Punctuation serves a purpose of increasing both the accuracy and subtlety of communication. Every form of communication requires common rules understood by all parties in order for that communication to be interpreted accurately and therefore make the communication worth while. Without punctuation written language becomes a garbled mess that is open to misinterpretation.
So go ahead and ignore punctuation if you like. Just be prepared to be misunderstood.
Try telling that to the Wikipedia generation..
Aye as a lad we got all our knowledge from books or from people that passed it on directly (ie teachers). Usefull as an information source as the internet can be, it shouldn't be relied upon for it's accuracy IMO. Unless that is you have enough knowledge in the first place to know which sites/organisations are/aren't to be trusted.
I actually laughed watching the news a while back when they reported that kids parents were complaining about the low marks their cherished ones got, stating they had done all their research on the internet, only to be told that no actually they just didn't get that many answers correct and the sites they had used weren't trusted sources of information.
Put another way.. there's a lot of shit on the internet.
Hmm yeah so silly that the AWD Audis of nearly a decade ago were ultimately effectively banned from touring car championships because the other manufacturers couldn't compete.
RWD is best.. yada yada yada .. give it a rest.. all this macho BS posturing about RWD is getting really really tiresome.
If you want to talk about what drive system is BEST for cars. Go do some empricical tests on grip levels and cornering speeds etc and I believe you'll find that AWD wipes the floor with any 2-wheel drive on any road that actually includes corners. Especially, (not only), on any surface that isn't billiard smooth and 100% grippy. Oh that'll be 99.99999% of the roads on the planet then.
That'll pretty much be why it was developed !! 
Plus, if you want to talk about BALLs get out of your steel box and go ride a motorcycle. Getting back to cars however, go tell rally drivers they got no BALLs
.Pissing about in a car park or local round about in your RWD laying down darkies makes you a real man.. sure.. until your BALLs drop and actually get hairs on them that is.
I hate motorbike racing clips that show crashes to "enhance" the excitment
I'm with you though. MotoGP is still where it's at for me.. check out all that drifting.. and the lean angles are just phenomenal .... sweet
This discussion has been had already. MotoGP isn't unique in having TC, both World and British Superbike series bikes have traction control and no one is complaining about unexciting racing in those series.
There isn't a TC system on the planet that is good enough to allow motorcycle riders to do that. Even with TC they have to be accurate with the throttle. Just not as accurate.
I don't believe you actually said that out loud in public.
But surely if the drivers were being treated "equally" they would put it on both cars at the same time to ensure equal gain/loss from the technology so as not to favour one over the other?
But like duke, I'm betting Rubens ends up being the "guinea pig", and when it turns out to be a hash (as it almost certainly will) they'll come out with some plea about how "theoretically" it should have been an advantage.
I'm hoping to be proven wrong.
Very true, we should never forget the atrocities of the past. We should learn from them, in order never to allow them to be repeated. But that doesn't mean we should allow ourselves to become victims of the past.
You mean it's been scientifically proven that women are worse at focusing on one job with out being distracted?
Yeah and any "study" that finds that either Boxing or Football require more strength than wrestling doesn't know what it's talking about and clearly doesn't understand the difference between strength and power in physiology. Neither Boxing or Football require hardly any strength. They certainly don't require more/same strength as wrestling and no way on earth do they require around 90% of the strength of a weight lifter.
No you didn't fix anything. Turbo'd engines do generally have wider torque curves, but a diesel engine has an inherent low rpm torque advange over a petrol engine of the same capacity. Plus the turbo can be configured in such a way as to have no affect on the torque curve at low rpms so as not to give any "added" advatage over and above that which diesel would inherently have. So the advantage is not purely down to the turbo, it's predominantly down to the inherent nature of the way a diesel makes torque. The turbo is used to balance the disadvantage of the lower high rpm torque/power output vs a petrol engine.
Or at least that is how they could be implemented. Not knowing the exact details of the implimentation on the actual cars we can't do anything more than speculate.
[QUOTE=col;1156433#That fan chose skin colour as an attribute of Hamilton that was to him, worthy of ridicule.[/quote]
No, actually that's your interpretation of which part of his display was the ridiculing part.
An equally valid interpretation of his actions is that he was ridiculing Hamiltons inability to press the correct button on his steering wheel, (as that is clearly what his gesturing seemed to be indicating), and that he "blacked up" purely to make it clear which of the two McLaren drivers he was talking about. IME Spanish people on the whole don't have the immediately negative interpretation of making the distinction between a person being black or white. To a large extent, culturally they see no problem with making the distinction, feeling on the whole that purely making the distinction is and of itself is not racist or prejudiced.
Without actually knowing what was going through that guys head at the time or prior to his actions there is absolutely no way for us to know for sure whether his behaviour was racist. His actions are only open to our own personal interpretations which themselves are informed by our own prejudices.
No, actually that's your interpretation of which part of his display was the ridiculing part.
An equally valid interpretation of his actions is that he was ridiculing Hamiltons inability to press the correct button on his steering wheel, (as that is clearly what his gesturing seemed to be indicating), and that he "blacked up" purely to make it clear which of the two McLaren drivers he was talking about. IME Spanish people on the whole don't have the immediately negative interpretation of making the distinction between a person being black or white. To a large extent, culturally they see no problem with making the distinction, feeling on the whole that purely making the distinction is and of itself is not racist or prejudiced.
Without actually knowing what was going through that guys head at the time or prior to his actions there is absolutely no way for us to know for sure whether his behaviour was racist. His actions are only open to our own personal interpretations which themselves are informed by our own prejudices.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Not true. There are only a handful of "races" on the planet and hundreds of different cultures. It's the mistake that people make of correlating the two that causes all the issues on the whole. In general most "racists" aren't making generalisations about the races but the cultures, or even the religion.
IMO, the term "racist" has been dumbed down by politicians and pressure groups for the benefit of their own agendas. What the vast majority of opinions or behaviours currently being labled as "racist" actually are is prejudice. To be racist is to be prejudiced, but to be prejudiced is not by definition to be racist, (and being offensive to a person of another race doesn't define one as being racist either). To be racist you have to believe in the inherent inferiority/superiority of one race over another and to take actual action to discriminate against such persons as you define as being of another race. The appartied system in South Africa was the very definition of racism. That is the true meaning of racism and to water it down with the wishy washy definitions of implication and "smell" of prejudice is to diminish the horror that true racism is.
Who's willing to bet that they'll "trial" it with Jensons car and risk his current WDC standing??
Oh yes and the turbo give a power advantage to the diesels.... oh wait
The argument about Turbo use is disingenous and you know it. The diesel engines have a power disadvantage when not turbo'd. The only way that they can be on equitable terms with petrol engines is to be turbo charged.
Plus they are given a weight penalty.
Simple fact of the matter is that diesel engines have a better torque curve for racing on a lot of circuits. Any manufacturer that wants to stick their heads in the sand over "loyalty" or such other facile reasons for sticking with petrol engines as have been stated in this forum deserve to loose. In racing, to win you have to be pragmatic and go with what wins irrespective of how you "feel" about it.
Same thing happened in motorcycle racing with the introduction of the Ducatis and their V twins. They made slightly less power than the Japanese bikes with their inline fours and were even heavier yet they dominated the racing for a long time because their power delivery gave them an advantage on a typical race circuit. Lots of teams just swapped manufacturers to remain competitive. Then the rules were adjusted slightly and the inline fours regained competitiveness and now bike racing is very balanced despite using completely different engine configurations. Same will happen with car racing. Eventually they will get the overall competitive balance right through regulation changes.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Personally I don't give a monkeys.. I'm for the action on the track.. It could all be played out in silence for all I care. IMO, if diesels are an advantage then the other teams should just get their act together and go the same way.
I just don't see what the big deal is about personally..
Both are internal combustion engines.
Both are Hydrocarbon based fuels.
Anyone would have thought people were complaining about the addition of a completely different form of advanced propulsion and energy production system, (introduced by some advanced alien race), the way some people are going on about this thing. When in fact we're talking about a minor difference in the fuel and the way it's combusted.
The bulb, reflector and lens are all designed to work as a combined unit to get the distribution of the headlight beam as required to meet manufacturers specs and remain within the law. Change one part alond and you'll mess one or the other up.
Clearly.
The accepted equation for centripetal force is
F=MV^2/R
Using tangental velocity.
I hadn't seen the derivation of that equation using W before, so I didn't recognise it as the correct formula.
Anyway, I now realise that substuting in the relationship between angular and tangential velocity (V=WR) does indeed give the equation stated.
That's what you get for trying to use your brain when half way to the land of nod.
Well firstly your equation for centripetal force appears to be wrong.
The velocity isn't angular it's tangental and is given by V not W. I thought at first that maybe it was an engineering version of the equation I'm aware of but I can't see any mention of it on any physics sites.
So:
F= (MV^2)/R rather than MV^2R as you've stated.
This would give an acceleration at any given radius of V^2/R
If you were to section up your tube of oil in to discrete sections of say 1mm and assumed the oil filled the tube completely you could then use the static fluid pressure equation (used to calculate pressure at a given water depth) of:
P= dgh
where d = density (of the oil), g= acceleration (normaly due to gravity but you could substitute in V^2/R), h = height of the column (in this case 1mm).
Calculate that for each of your discrete sections of tube and then sum them and that should give you the final pressure at the appature of your tube, ie the pressure required to be overcome to allow the oil to flow in to the tube.
I think
You mean apart from actually finding the set up that allowed the Brawns to even be in the position of wining the Spanish GP ?? Yup, Barrichello hasn't proven anything so far..
As far as the OP is concerned. Well I have to say it does seem very very suspicious to me that a team should change their current championship leading drivers race tactics just to "cover the bases". If they were going to do that surely they wouldn't risk it with their current "best bet" driver considering they still truely believed a 3 stop strategy was the best. Makes no strategic sense to me. I for one believe that they recrunched the numbers after seeing the actual performance of everyone around and realised a two stopper was the strategy to be on and just left Barrichello out to dry. I suspect Barrichello believes that's what happened too. He's an old hat at this game and he knows somethings going on, you could see it written all over his face in the post race interview.
To be honest though, I think ultimately the question may well be moot. I've got a strong feeling that Ferrari are on the verge of getting their car on terms if not quicker than the Brawns and that they'll be dominating the last 8-10 races of the season.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
The whole process of qualification for the world cup is biased in favour of European teams. For example just look at how many games European teams have to play in the qualification rounds vs teams from other continents, (especially S. America). More specifically I don't care about the protestations of FIFA against charges that the groupings are rigged. If the picking of teams for groups was truely random occasionally you'd see groups with Spain, Germany, France, England etc all in the same group and other groups just with "weaker" teams. Funny how it always seems to work out that there is only ever a maximum of two "top" teams in any European world cup qualification group. Pretty much ensuring that all the "big names" in Europe will always be able to qualify for the finals.
Football isn't a sport any more, it's long become a business interested purely in making money.
Well considering that I can't think of a single reported incident of crowd violence etc between Rugby team fans I think they've probably got some justification about feeling that way.
or that I have NEVER seen a rugby player "face off" a referee let alone actualy assult one then I think the players themselves can also justifiably consider themselves "better" than football players.
Neither have I ever heard of Rugby players being pulled up on assult charges, (or worse Rape charges), from their "night outs" with the boys.
There is a general level of sportsmanship and respect for authority in Rugby that just doesn't exist in Football in my experience. Sure there is the occasional flaring up of tempers and very rarely a punch is thrown but then we're talking about a very physical full contact sport, unlike Football which is supposedly the complete opposite. Even when such things do happen they are dealt with strongly by the ref and no one even dares to argue about it. Unlike Football again where refs are often physically intimidated by players over decisions made against them.
Err only forever. Rugby has ALWAYS been called Rugby Football officially.
http://www.rfu.com/index.htm
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Well obviously. I was talking about within the limits of the displacement of the hull. I would have thought that was a given in any discussion about boat loading. Everybody knows if you put too much load in a boat it will sink, didn't think that was something that would even need to be said.
Ok well, like I said I'm no expert and the vid you made seemed to show the bow lifting a lot more than in that new video. I will say this about the new one though..
a) Its on a completely smooth surface.
b) The guy is a bit of a lard arse and probaly weighs more than you and your girlfriend together. Of course you can put pretty much any power outboard on a dingy if you got enough weight at the bow to keep it down
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG