Actually it is you who does not have proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
It is easy to imagine all kinds of crazy stuff. Afterlife, pink flying invisible elephants, aliens, crazy conspiracies, fake moonlanding, magical healing and power or prayer but there is no single piece of evidence that shows any of those is true.
Non-existence of proof of existence is also proof for non-existence. Aliens are good example. There is no proof. In medicine we can also tell if patient has cancer or not. When a patient doesn't have cancer we conclude that non-existence of evidence of the cancer proves the non-existence of the cancer.
This denial of evidence that contradicts your views then leads to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps way of thinking.
Here are my own answers:
1. Hamilton
2. Mercedes
3. Maldonado
4. Yes
5. Bottas
6. Grosjean
7. Alonso
8. 6th
9. No
10. Kobayashi
11. No
12. Hamilton
13. Hulkenberg
14. Williams
15: Yes
16: Rosberg
17. Hamilton
18. 299
1. Hamilton
2. Mercedes
3. Maldonado
4. Yes
5. Bottas
6. Grosjean
7. Alonso
8. 6th
9. No
10. Kobayashi
11. No
12. Hamilton
13. Hulkenberg
14. Williams
15: Yes
16: Rosberg
17. Hamilton
18. 299
You both are doing it wrong, I amade the obvious pieces of text bold to make it easier not fail the question.
try again
try again
Last edited by Hyperactive, .
So it is time for the yearly F1 questionnaire 2014 edition!
Answer the questions and the one who gets most answers correct wins the invaluable "lfsforum F1 prediction grandmaster" award! The glorious award has been won previously by:
2012:
No points given
In 2013 season:
Hyperactive
teppo.jr
Iginla
Must post your guesses before the 12th of March (00.00 UTC). All posts after that will be ignored. One point for correct answer, 0 for wrong. Last question is worth 5 points. In case of equal points the who guessed closest to the last question wins.
1. Who will win drivers' world championship:
2. Which team will win constructors' world championship:
3. Who is the last finisher in Australian gp including dnf, retire, disqualified, last to drive over the s/f line:
4. Will 13 or more cars finish the Australina gp race (within 2 laps of the winner) :
5. Who will score more points in 2014. Bottas or Massa:
6. Who will score more points in 2014. Grosjean or Maldonado:
7. Who will score more points in 2014. Räikkönen or Alonso:
8. What is the best race finishing result for Magnussen in 2014:
9. Do you think Ricciardo will win at least one race in 2014:
10. First driver you think will lose his drive during 2013 (miss at least one race):
11. Will Caterham or Marussia score points in 2013:
12. Who will win the pole position on the Sochi qualifying:
13. Out of all sauber, force india, toro rosso and williams WHICH DRIVER will score the most points during the season:
14. Out of Sauber, Force india, Toro rosso and Williams WHICH TEAM scores the most points during 2014 season:
15: Do you think Simona de Silvestro will drive 2014 spec F1 car during 2014 season (free practise, testing or city run or whatever):
16: Winner of Australian gp:
17. Winner of Monaco gp:
18. How many points will the dwc winning driver have at the end of the season:
(I'll post my own predictions later)
Answer the questions and the one who gets most answers correct wins the invaluable "lfsforum F1 prediction grandmaster" award! The glorious award has been won previously by:
2012:
No points given
In 2013 season:
Hyperactive
teppo.jr
Iginla
Must post your guesses before the 12th of March (00.00 UTC). All posts after that will be ignored. One point for correct answer, 0 for wrong. Last question is worth 5 points. In case of equal points the who guessed closest to the last question wins.
1. Who will win drivers' world championship:
2. Which team will win constructors' world championship:
3. Who is the last finisher in Australian gp including dnf, retire, disqualified, last to drive over the s/f line:
4. Will 13 or more cars finish the Australina gp race (within 2 laps of the winner) :
5. Who will score more points in 2014. Bottas or Massa:
6. Who will score more points in 2014. Grosjean or Maldonado:
7. Who will score more points in 2014. Räikkönen or Alonso:
8. What is the best race finishing result for Magnussen in 2014:
9. Do you think Ricciardo will win at least one race in 2014:
10. First driver you think will lose his drive during 2013 (miss at least one race):
11. Will Caterham or Marussia score points in 2013:
12. Who will win the pole position on the Sochi qualifying:
13. Out of all sauber, force india, toro rosso and williams WHICH DRIVER will score the most points during the season:
14. Out of Sauber, Force india, Toro rosso and Williams WHICH TEAM scores the most points during 2014 season:
15: Do you think Simona de Silvestro will drive 2014 spec F1 car during 2014 season (free practise, testing or city run or whatever):
16: Winner of Australian gp:
17. Winner of Monaco gp:
18. How many points will the dwc winning driver have at the end of the season:
(I'll post my own predictions later)
Last edited by Hyperactive, .
Reason : ADDED BOLDNESS WITH CAPITAL LETTERS damn capslock
1 hour 44 minutes of onboard Ferrari V12 goodness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4CX6-eGXWU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4CX6-eGXWU
100 kilograms for race and 100kg/h peak. I think it is fairly easy to calculate how much hp on average per lap you get out of 100 litres of fuel in 1 hour 40 minute race.
So I did a fast calculation with these numbers:
- fuel efficiency of the engine: 0,35
- fuel energy 46MJ/kg
- duration of race 100 minutes out of which 60% is on full throttle
I get about 600hp (1,34hp=1kW). That's without ers, kers and derps.
Last edited by Hyperactive, .
Reason : d'oh
I don't usually watch these kind of videos but I think this is amazing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VhZ7lIOEGk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VhZ7lIOEGk
Mardenborough is born in 1991 while reip is born in 1987 and ordonez in 1985. Redbulls wants them young. Even Mardenborough is already 23 so he has a lot more time left than 27 year old reip or 29 year old ordonez. F1 teams won't get ordonez no matter how good he is if he is now 29, after a season of gp3 will be 30. Even if goes to do a season of gp2 he will be 31 at earliest when he can get into F1.
Neither are even questions of faith. What you "believe" makes no difference when it is the fact that matter. Not opinions.
As for capital punishment I find it kind of crazy how people see it purely from the perspective of revenge. Or letting him live is worse punishment than dying. The "easy way out".
In my opinion Breivik should be killed simply because he is too dangerous alive.
So the less violent and judgemental side is more true because they are less violent and judgemental?
Tim 4:1
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
Tim 4:2
Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
Tim 4:3
They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
Where does it say anything about cherrypicking? It says stuff about *gasp* non-believers. Not about believers cherrypicking.
So why is creationism true but childwifes is not? As far as I understand there is not one single word in the whole book that says f****ng little children is wrong (unless it is adultery or about stealing)? Why do you believe in creationism but at the same I think you are sensible enough to not kill non-christians. Again why?
I don't think anybody who believes in whatever he believes is deluded. Psychiatric diseases do exist but I don't see believing in thousand year old books as one.
I doubt it. But then again I see stuff daily that your holy book is proven to be wrong about.
I think there is a sort of "better do something than nothing" psychological trap there. If your child is sick and someone says crossing your fingers and speaking to clouds makes things better you obviously think the person suggesting that is a moron. But at the same time it doesn't cost anything to cross your fingers. Instead of doing nothing you can feel like you are doing something. In the end the child sometimes survives and omg crossing my fingers worked! Power of prayer. Do nothing but feel like you are doing something. Makes you feel good about yourself, makes you feel like you are helping. Makes you feel like you are better person. The whole process is well understood in modern psychology.
Last edited by Hyperactive, .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F ... logy#In_Christian_thought
In Christian theology, God is described as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; a notion which some people, Christians and non-Christians alike, believe implies that not only has God always known what choices individuals will make tomorrow, but has actually determined those choices. That is, they believe, by virtue of his foreknowledge he knows what will influence individual choices, and by virtue of his omnipotence he controls those factors. This becomes especially important for the doctrines relating to salvation and predestination.
I think you are just cherrypicking your favourite parts from the religion using your own biological sense that is result of evolution. If you say you believe then why not believe it all literally? Nye asked many times why Ham takes some parts of the bible as poetry while others bits are to be taken literally. What is poetry and what is not is just question of opinion. Back in the day when the bible was actually written people were actually stoned to death. Why are you not stoning people to death today? Honest question.
It's like saying I think the law book is a fine book and I think everyone should follow the laws. But not the parts about stealing. I think stealing is fine.
When it comes to religions all I'm seeing is that people use the religious ideas and literature to just justify their own prejudices, ideas and opinions. If there is something in the religion they disagree with (like stoning people to death) that part is just ignored or explained away as poetry. Homophobics get a real hardon when the ugly act of man sex is described as sin but too bad premarital sex is a sin too. But meh, that bit was just poetry.
If bible is words from god then how can you leave anything out if you really believe? If you believe in creationism then why don't you believe in stoning people for adultery?
Atheism being a religion is like saying not wearing clothes is wearing clothes. Or the old and great quote "if atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby". Atheism means just one thing. Not having a religion. Period. For religious people this seems to be impossible concept to understand. For them everyone has to have a religion. Not having one is something they do not even understand as a concept so they deny it.
As for creationism. It is just the same old book written by humans thousands of years ago who did not understand anything what they saw on the ground, on the sky or in the water. But they wanted an explanation. So they invented lots of explanations in the form of stories. They gathered lots of old ideas and mixed them with new ideas. All of those ideas were invented by man using their imagination because that is all they had. They lived in era where average lifespan was just fraction of what it is now, a lot of children died at child birth or at young age to diseases no one had any idea what was causing them. Then they look at sky and they see the stars, the moon, the sun. They feel the wind and the rain, the cold an warmth of the air. But they did not understand it. Where did all this come from? Because the only tool to explain it was imagination that is what they used.
The mayans had a different kind of idea that the christians had. Christians used a lot of old stories others had used before them. Even in the finnish folklore Kalevala there is one version of this creation. We know these are all stories that are not true. But if you teach a child from early age that kalevala is true then he will believe it. But it is still nothing more than an imaginery story. Calling it creationism doesn't suddenly make it any less imaginery.
A lot of this has to do with human psychology and how it works. Humans want explanation even when there is not one. Human mind is great at justifying its own assumptions and ignoring stuff that contradicts our assumptions. Ufos and aliens are a great example. All the blurry pics of seagulls and lens artefacts and reflections show nothing. But that is why so many people believe in ufos. There has to be an explanation for those blurry things!? No.
When you have a blurry pic of something you need to remember that one of the conclusions is not "aliens or not aliens" but that you can not tell anything from the picture because it shows nothing. It is just a blurry pic. But that is not a good explanation for our brains and it may even contradict our beliefs so we ignore it. Explanation that there is no explanation is not satisfying. Any explanation is better than none.
So some people then ignore the facts and believes they know but can't prove it. For them it becomes a question of proving a negative, proving the non-existence. "Prove that aliens don't exist and I admit I'm wrong". It is russell's teapot.
As for creationism. It is just the same old book written by humans thousands of years ago who did not understand anything what they saw on the ground, on the sky or in the water. But they wanted an explanation. So they invented lots of explanations in the form of stories. They gathered lots of old ideas and mixed them with new ideas. All of those ideas were invented by man using their imagination because that is all they had. They lived in era where average lifespan was just fraction of what it is now, a lot of children died at child birth or at young age to diseases no one had any idea what was causing them. Then they look at sky and they see the stars, the moon, the sun. They feel the wind and the rain, the cold an warmth of the air. But they did not understand it. Where did all this come from? Because the only tool to explain it was imagination that is what they used.
The mayans had a different kind of idea that the christians had. Christians used a lot of old stories others had used before them. Even in the finnish folklore Kalevala there is one version of this creation. We know these are all stories that are not true. But if you teach a child from early age that kalevala is true then he will believe it. But it is still nothing more than an imaginery story. Calling it creationism doesn't suddenly make it any less imaginery.
A lot of this has to do with human psychology and how it works. Humans want explanation even when there is not one. Human mind is great at justifying its own assumptions and ignoring stuff that contradicts our assumptions. Ufos and aliens are a great example. All the blurry pics of seagulls and lens artefacts and reflections show nothing. But that is why so many people believe in ufos. There has to be an explanation for those blurry things!? No.
When you have a blurry pic of something you need to remember that one of the conclusions is not "aliens or not aliens" but that you can not tell anything from the picture because it shows nothing. It is just a blurry pic. But that is not a good explanation for our brains and it may even contradict our beliefs so we ignore it. Explanation that there is no explanation is not satisfying. Any explanation is better than none.
So some people then ignore the facts and believes they know but can't prove it. For them it becomes a question of proving a negative, proving the non-existence. "Prove that aliens don't exist and I admit I'm wrong". It is russell's teapot.
It sounds like renault are having problems with their batteries?
http://www.racecar-engineering ... lures-stop-teams-testing/
http://www.racecar-engineering ... lures-stop-teams-testing/
From autosport forum
old but still funny
old but still funny
I thought some of the stepped noses looked kinda nice. The ferrari looked good imho:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi ... a_2012_Malaysia_FP2_1.jpg
That ferrari looks much better than this for example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w ... 2012_Malaysia_Qualify.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi ... a_2012_Malaysia_FP2_1.jpg
That ferrari looks much better than this for example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w ... 2012_Malaysia_Qualify.jpg
So they have released some development video showing the suspension:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwcsuOMAyOc
The car parts look very much like an rc car and the video doesn't really show much. Hopefully they release this some day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwcsuOMAyOc
The car parts look very much like an rc car and the video doesn't really show much. Hopefully they release this some day.
Personally the only bad thing about dlc nordschleife is that I'm not too sure whether dlc track addons in general are a good idea. Dlc cars work really well because practically in every game you can drive on same track with people who have and don't have the dlc car(s) and other people can see those dlc cars in action as well which probably also makes some people get the car dlc pack too once they have seen it in person. But with tracks it is a whole different thing. You can only experience the track dlc if you buy it for yourself. Or go watch a youtube video or read it from the forums or see some pics.
There are of course financial realities and I'd imagine nordschleife is a costly piece of content. All that being said I'm not against dlc nordschleife one bit. Norschleife as a dlc track will probably sell enough but I'm pretty sure the same thing would not happen with less popular tracks like monza, suzuka or interlagos.
Another danger is that if they release 10 cars with the nordschleife dlc then it is probably a bad idea if some of those 10 cars are used to create an independant series where no base content cars can't participate (like if 3 of those 10 were wtcc cars for example or whatever and there were no wtcc cars in the base package). Ideally they would want at least one similar car (one wtcc car for example) to come with the base package so there would be a lot more people racing wtcc cars online. Most would probably be driving the base model but at least that way the dlc cars also had good chance of being used online.
If ac plays this smart they have a gem. I think the norschleife news is just amazing. So much awesomeness. Such happy. wow!
There are of course financial realities and I'd imagine nordschleife is a costly piece of content. All that being said I'm not against dlc nordschleife one bit. Norschleife as a dlc track will probably sell enough but I'm pretty sure the same thing would not happen with less popular tracks like monza, suzuka or interlagos.
Another danger is that if they release 10 cars with the nordschleife dlc then it is probably a bad idea if some of those 10 cars are used to create an independant series where no base content cars can't participate (like if 3 of those 10 were wtcc cars for example or whatever and there were no wtcc cars in the base package). Ideally they would want at least one similar car (one wtcc car for example) to come with the base package so there would be a lot more people racing wtcc cars online. Most would probably be driving the base model but at least that way the dlc cars also had good chance of being used online.
If ac plays this smart they have a gem. I think the norschleife news is just amazing. So much awesomeness. Such happy. wow!
So much joke.
Much Finland.
Amaze.
Wow.
Much Finland.
Amaze.
Wow.
There is no reason to use personal insults ever. If the only way to discuss about something is to attack the character of the other person then you are only adding negativety to the thread and validating his points. And making yourself look like what ever adjective you originally used to describe him.
You really think calling someone imbecile who disagrees with you is ok?
Yeah. The only thing that does exist is freedom of moderation.
To you this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Formula_One_season
looks the same as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Formula_One_season
?
I think ferrari lost the title when schumi went into to the wall... because of brake failure. Maybe rbr should have treated webber as number 1 just in case vettel's car breaks and spins into a wall and vettel break his leg?
Then why was it vettel who won everything and webber who won nothing in that same car? If the car was that awesome in 2012/2013 and mark couldn't do anything in it compared to vettel then mark must have been one of the worst drivers? I don't think mark was that bad. It was vettel who was that good.
I think it is just sad when pirelli is getting so much bad press when the fault is not with pirelli but fia. Fia wanted pirelli to make a tire that doesn't last long. Pirelli did just that. Apparently doing that kind of tire is difficult when you can not test your tires at all. So for pirelli the only testing they get to do is when the cameras are rolling. And even if pirelli wanted to make changes to the tires fia was against it.
It even took until the end of september this year before pirelli even got a contract for 2014. The way I see it I'm kind of surprised pirelli hasn't left.
You mean vettel did?
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG