Quote from sinbad :

If someone makes a fair pass, and you don't turn in on them, it's fair. If you don't see them, turn in on them and there is contact, it's still fair, but if you should have seen them, it's your fault. If you turn in in the knowledge that they are there, your actions deserve penalty.

This idea that the car in front can do no wrong whilst being passed just leads to confusion. All that matters is track position.

+1

I think it hard to believe that people still think the driver being overtaken has absolutely NO responsibility at ALL times.

When I race if I leave a gap and someone takes it and I turn in, I'm the idiot. In fact this very thing happened to me a few months ago. I thought I was defending hard, some dude came right up the inside, we touched. I was a tad narked, but after reviewing some pictures I did actually leave a gap and that's fair enough. it's a little thing called.... racing.

In racing there is a shared responsibility. Yes the overtaker has the greater responsibility, but he can't direct the actions of the driver in front, and on occasion the driver in front instigates the contact.

Quote from [Audi TT] :

If the patch will be in this year, it will be light type. Without new physics, etc. But in my opinion already, already, it is already time. At least learn from Scawen on how much % of the work on the new physics of tires.

I doubt they could put a % on it. The complexity of building an accurate new tyre model probably means they could be either 10% there or 90% there. Not until all the BETA testing is done will they know where they are,.

You can overtake in qualifying if both on flying laps, it's perfectly legit. Nothing wrong with the move other than Pastor being a total egit thinking that if someone is driving behind you on a flying lap and needs to pass you, leaving a GIANT gaping gap on the inside might not be the best thing to do.

Don't wanna get passed? Don't leave a gap, don't be stupid.

Hamilton had to make the pass, nowt wrong with that. It was either make the pass or fall out of Q2.... I think any sane person would pick the former. They don't get paid not to make perfectly legitimate moves... hence the lack of penalty. I really think some of you needs to watch some other form of racing... rally?

Last edited by Intrepid, Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:07.

It's awful, you're not alone.

haha it was just too easy.

BTW can't wait for F1 at Sky. Getting cut-off for rugby... tut tut.

Hamilton's move was fine, maldanado is the one in trouble.

Hamilton overtook Pastor last corner to get through into Q3.

Coming out of T1 Pastor cut Hamilton's nose off. Hamilton did have a little nibble tbh, but Maldanado went a bit overboard.

What did the vegan zombie eat?


GRRRAAAIIINNNNSSS

A smart boss will not just look at 'good' GCSE and A-level results. All they demonstrate that within a school environment the person sitting in front excelled. Schooling, despite getting good grades, didn't really teach me much. Being good at school isn't an accurate way to measure someone for a working environment. School is very much 1 size fits all, and most good employers understand it's a load of bullshit.

Unless you have a very very clear career goal, your results are not much more than an ego booster.

I certainly don't need some teacher telling me whether my writing is good or not, whether my maths is bad, whether my knowledge or history is good. I can do that for myself.

So if u did **** up, don't worry.... it's all bullshit

GSCEs or even A-Levels are only significantly important if you have a clear career goal that requires good academic results. Finding what you want to do in life is of far greater importance, if you don't have that, the exam results - good or bad - mean jack shit. Most kids however have pathetic career advisors who seem to push them in completely the wrong direction.

****, I flew through doing music at school and college with As and distinctions. Didn't really mean much as in the end wasn't what I really had the passion to do as a career. Mind you I got As in English at GCSE and I can't write or spell for shit. So it shows how representative grades are.

Last edited by Intrepid, Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:36.

Why are you assuming Murdoch would gain more power?

Murdoch gets his power because OF government, not despite of government. He's a corporatist (Corporatism is often naively mistaken for capitalism). With no or less government power he has no power.

Last edited by Intrepid, Wed, 24 Aug 2011 19:10.

... and surprise surprise this little gem turns up

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm ... ames-murdoch-wrong-on-bbc

Mark Thompson writing for the Guardian in a wholly impartial manner.... cough cough.

Mark Thompson of the BBC finding refuge with the Guardian??? NEVER.

Using the disaster at News Corp to justify the BBC is one of the lamest and downright pathetic opportunist arguments I've read in a long time.

I particulary like this part

Quote :

Subsequent events have given James's famous final flourish – that "the only reliable, durable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit" – an unexpected and almost tragic irony. It's a phrase which sums up his entire case: that all forms of public intervention in and regulation of media are both morally reprehensible and practically useless, and that it is the market alone which can deliver brave, worthwhile, independent journalism. Yet it was under just these conditions – the lightest of light touch regulation, minimal oversight and accountability, commercial considerations to the fore – that the catastrophe at the News of the World unfolded.

Was it not the Guardian under these very same condition that exposed what was going on? The free market WORKED. The Guardian exposed the failings of a major corporation. Sorry Mark, you're talking nonsense.

He pitches the BBC right as an opposition to Sky. But it's very typical for the 'impartial' BBC to play political games.

Quite frankly I couldn't give two flying ****s about either of them. Neither should receive any money, unless the person giving it is making it under their own choice.

The BBC and Sky are two pees in a pod... just one robs you and tells you it's 'for your own good.

Quote from Funnybear :

Sorry, your post is rather vague. Are you taking the mickey out of Keynesian poitics? Or are you for it?

And a leftist broadcaster for a leftish country. Sounds like the bias is following popular trends of the population. The people. The demos. The democracy. If it was left to the governement we'd have a 'free' and open broadcasting market, with no true public broadcaster, and with compition brings right wing politics.

So yea, I'm pretty happy with my lefish telly as it fits my leftish view of the world.

He's taking the mick out of Keynsian politics because it's a complete and utter joke. Wrecked the economy.

The Guardian? The Mirror? The ENDLESS amount of left-wing websites... all free from state-interference and funding. How incredible that they can exist. And frankly they are better off without it.

Maybe I am from planet zong, but I'd feel as uncomfortable with the state sponsoring something I do support as I do about them sponsoring something I don't. I am very empathetic with those who are burdened by tax and receive no direct benefit themselves, even counter productive for them, despite me myself benefiting.

The BBC is NOT a democratic entity so how on earth can it follow the trend of the nation. That's an absurd statement to make. There is NO democracy within the BBC, and the funding is a disproportionate burden on the poor. It's the opposite of democratic and quite often does not follow the trend of the nation.

Saying the BBC is a good thing because it's left-wing?? It is quite frankly frightening that this viewpoint even exits.

Last edited by Intrepid, Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:18.

Quote from 5haz :

The quality of BBC broadcasting has no doubt not been helped by the huge cuts forced on them. I see you've dropped your favorite word (monopoly) and replaced it with bias, was it not working for you?

Are you seriously naive enough to think a completely impartial broadcaster is a realistic possibility?

1. The funding cuts are a recent event and do not reflect on the average content the BBC has pumped out for years. 90% of BBC Three is turd for example and the less we speak about Radio "Everything is either 'legendary' or 'amazing' " One the better.

2. I don't think an impartial broadcaster is a real possibility, hence why the fundamental point of the BBC is a fallacy. It can not ever been anything more than the Guardian with bells attached.

Quite frankly I do not want to be forced to be pay for the broadcasting arm of The Guardian.

I prefer a completely free market and open press, full stop. I like the Guardian, I like the Telegraph. I like to CHOOSE to pay for those when I wish.

Oh how different it would be if Murdoch put in an application for the licence fee.

Quote from Funnybear :

Old boy networks aside, it's stil the most popular broadcaster in the the UK taking all formats into account. So they gotta be doing something right.

It's popular because it has a gigantic budget and pretty much holds all the best positions in the broadcasting market.

All that aside, it's still a politically bias broadcaster.

I consistently watch BBC News and read many of their economic blog and I am astounding on a day a to day basis how bias they are.

There was a brief interview the other day for example with an economic professor from some Uni, and almost completely unopposed (the anchor didn't really understand anything) said more spending was necessary on 'infrastructure' to save the economy and used a highly debatable event in the depression to back up her point.

Fine it's one argument, but it's one that goes constantly unopposed. However when the counter argument is presented, quite often he BBC suddenly turns into this impartial broadcaster that must present all areas of the argument. Their use of language as well is interesting. The bail-outs 'saved' the economy. This is an often used term. Sometime I don't even think they themselves are aware of it. How wrong they are, how dangerously wrong.

A tax funded bias-broadcaster in a free country? huh?

Even creative content on the BBC is pretty poor. No wonder Ricky Gervias admitted he pretty much only watched Yank TV. Which I have to say, I'm getting the same. Their drama makes UK drama look like a kids nativity play.

Last edited by Intrepid, Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:23.

It's for the 'show' quite clearly.

The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec - (Very) French fantasy adventure film. Enjoyable and Louise Bourgoin is FIT as you like

Monopoly is often a word associated with companies like the BBC, which certainly DO have a monopoly on the licence fee and public service broadcasting. Considering C4 and ITV have to adhere to certain public service rules, you'd think they would have benefit from a licence fee? NO they don't. The term 'monopoly' couldn't be MORE apt. The BBC have a monopoly on the licence fee... FACT! Though there shouldn't be a 'media tax' to fund a bias broadcaster in the first place in a free society.

They behave exactly like a monopoly because they are one as demonstrated in the latest turn of events regarding F1 on BBC.

Last edited by Intrepid, Sun, 21 Aug 2011 14:17.

Turns out the BBC didn't want ITV or C4 getting rights (monopolies often behave in this manner). So it was either a complete abandonment of coverage or Sky coming in and saving the day.

It's not his responsibility. I don't think he is the one dishing out the licences and insurance. It was mis-guided, and dangerous.

Aussie Racing Cars Start Choas! - QLD Raceway 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQPhgvVOGHY

What a farce!

Quote from Glenn67 :

So Intrepid do you have an exit strategy? Or are you just going for the roller coaster experience I confess I've done both in the past

I haven't really invested in gold, it's more of a 'protective measure'. I am quite bullish with Silver as well. Basically protecting myself against inflation rather than an out-and-out profit making venture.

Long term gold is going to go 2000-3000, I am pretty confident on that. There will of course be short term corrections. If it goes any higher that means the economy has fully gone to shit and life wouldn't be worth living anyway.

I think the fundamentals are pointing towards land and commodities like food production. That's where I'd be looking to invest if I didn't have an addiction to ****ing motor sport

I think a bet towards any non-animal product food would be a good bet as the food crisis develops. Farmers will have to move towards more sustainable sources of food production for a growing population.

But tbh I am no investor

Gold has hit $1865! Got to have a correction soon, but amazing prices.

Apparently spectators are killed at this event from time to time. Madness