Until something better comes along probably. Although it would have to be pretty damn incredible for me to leave LFS completely. iRacing is probably the no.1 candidate ATM.
I don't drive all that much and have had longer breaks but I love the way LFS literally brings a smile to my face when I fire it up for the first time in a couple of weeks, even after 4+ years.
I don't drive all that much and have had longer breaks but I love the way LFS literally brings a smile to my face when I fire it up for the first time in a couple of weeks, even after 4+ years.
Yes, it's a very complicated and dynamic system. But the way I look at it is that the effects you mention are all part of a pretty closed system. What we as humans have been doing recently though is add new matter into the mix from what you could call an external source (oil and coal from deep within the crust). This is really what I'm objecting to.
But I have to say I would gladly agree with your view that the amount of mass we're moving from underground into the air is too small to be significant. It's just that I don't have any means by which to form an opinion on this because, as has been said before in this thread, it seems that people from both sides of the fence are coming up with whatever data they need to prove their point, creating too much conflicting data for laymen to comprehend.
Nah, we can always just pile them up.
Young Tiff in a Group C Porsche 962 at Silverstone. (35 MB)
http://rapidshare.com/files/21 ... Silverstone_Test.avi.html
Enjoy.
http://rapidshare.com/files/21 ... Silverstone_Test.avi.html
Enjoy.
Last edited by J.B., .
I totally agree that some bad bad s*** can happen in relation to nuclear power creation. It's just that any catastorphes I can imagine completely pale against the idea of what could happen if we mess with that layer of air that surrounds our whole planet and regulates the temparature of the very surface that every single human being lives on.
The existence of the atmosphere and it's thermodynamic properties is the fundamental difference between the earth and any other large piece of rock. If there's one thing wie shouldn't do it's make any changes to the mixture unless we know exactly what we're doing which clearly we don't.
Do you have some exact data on this? Since when have CO2 levels been increasing? Which changes happened during this time that cause 50 times the amount of CO2 that man is adding to the atmosphere to be added by natural means?
I'd look at it more from the side that burning coal is bad rather than that nuclear power plants are good. But in a way they are good yes. Afterall, we all want to get our power from somwhere and the amount of us isn't getting any smaller either.
Do you think burning coal is a GOOD thing? You're probably going to answer that you like solar and wind power better but that's just a cop out. Solar and wind power can't deliver enough power with current technology. Full stop.
Here's a CO2 cake-graph thingy I just came across (data is for Germany 2004).
blue: power plants
green: industry
yellow: cars
red: household
grey: other transportation
One thing I'm not entirely sure about is which group delivery trucks are in. They could be in either industry or other transportation.
To me it shows pretty clearly that shutting down nuclear power plants is an option that should never have even been considered. Or if you do think it's a good idea then at least STFU about cars and go live in the woods. Even if every single car in the whole country was a Prius what would it change? PKW from 12 to 9 %?
blue: power plants
green: industry
yellow: cars
red: household
grey: other transportation
One thing I'm not entirely sure about is which group delivery trucks are in. They could be in either industry or other transportation.
To me it shows pretty clearly that shutting down nuclear power plants is an option that should never have even been considered. Or if you do think it's a good idea then at least STFU about cars and go live in the woods. Even if every single car in the whole country was a Prius what would it change? PKW from 12 to 9 %?
Last edited by J.B., .
You're right that performances like that could add some pressure. But I think he is probably in a better enviroment to deal with any difficult situations than Nico was. At Williams the drivers are traditionally left to themselves wheras Lewis will get all the support he can dream of from Mclaren.
I'd give Massa the benefit of the doubt due to the fact that it was a street circuit. If it had been at Hockenheim or Suzuka I waould also be saying that he performed poorly. In Hockenheim 2005 for example Montoya went from last to 6th or 7th in a couple of laps (from memory). And we all know about Suzuka of the same year.
Anyway move of the race was Hamilton in the first corner. Braking diagonally to the left and then goiing right round the outside. That guy can race!
Anyway move of the race was Hamilton in the first corner. Braking diagonally to the left and then goiing right round the outside. That guy can race!
Exactly. Guess who his team mate was in the British F3 season in which Sato won more races than Ayrton Senna? Hint: his surname starts with "Dav" and ends with "son". Although I admit he has had his fair share of incidents.
The top six seem to be incredibly close! Here's hoping for a great season. The way I interpreted the times Mclaren are starting much heavier than Ferrari tomorrow so who knows, maybe we'll be looking at a fight between LH and FA, similar to Australia '96 wenn Jaques the rookie came very close to winning?
And fantastic pace by BMW. Who would have guessed that the split from Williams would be the beginning of such a powerfull drive to the front end of the grid?
And I liked the fact that the green Honda cars didn't have to go into the wastefull, pointless fuel burning session that is q3. Maybe they are thinking of new ways to justify their new livery?
BTW does anyone know exactly how the whole soft/hard tyre thing works? FA used soft tyres in q3 when LH used hard tyres. What could be the reason for this? Do they have to use the tyres they use in q3 for the first stint of the race?
And fantastic pace by BMW. Who would have guessed that the split from Williams would be the beginning of such a powerfull drive to the front end of the grid?
And I liked the fact that the green Honda cars didn't have to go into the wastefull, pointless fuel burning session that is q3. Maybe they are thinking of new ways to justify their new livery?
BTW does anyone know exactly how the whole soft/hard tyre thing works? FA used soft tyres in q3 when LH used hard tyres. What could be the reason for this? Do they have to use the tyres they use in q3 for the first stint of the race?
I feel it's more a case of nuclear opponents thinking that the proponents think that nuclear power is as cute as kittens. Looking at the nuclear proponents this way makes it easier to attack and dismiss them.
Most nuclear proponents are well aware of the problems that do exist but the only important question is whether, overall, nuclear power is better for mankind than burning fossils or not. Of course there is hope for a much cleaner future with massive solar farms in the Sahara, much better electricity storage and transport, wind farms out on the oceans etc. But right now, at this moment in time, the only viable methods to supply the earth with energy are fossil power or nuclear power. Pick one.
What nuclear opponents seem to be saying is that burning coal is bad but since nuclear isn't absolutely perfect and once there was an explosion as well, let's continue burning coal. Then there won't be any explosions, never mind the thousands of coal miners that are killed every year...
Another question: when talking about mankind and energy and rescources why aren't issues like overpopulation and birth control ever brought up? Religious reasons? (serious question)
Last edited by J.B., .
Huh, since when has the global warming discussion resulted in new nuclear power plants popping up everywhere?
If this were the case there would be much less of a CO2 problem. I know a new one is being constructed in your country at the moment but according to the BBC "...the reactor will be the first in Western Europe since 1991, when the French authorised the construction of a new one, and the first in Finland in three decades."
You can hardly speak of a trend here.
Does anyone else find ROR undrivable because of a 180° deadzone in the steering?
I've pretty much given up trying to find out how much or how little the human race is responsible for the earth's climate. As Vain said there's just too much conflicting data and claims being thrown around. To really be able to have an own oppinion I don't think you can get around studying the matter in depth as a professional at this stage.
But this doesn't change the fact that digging and drilling out old fossil mass from the earth's crust and releasing it into the atmosphere by burning it doesen't sound like a clever idea by any measure. If you know anything about heat transfer systems you will be aware that the atmosphere is the only reason the temperatures on earth are suited to support current life forms and that any change to the chemical mixture of the air around this planet will influence this system. The thing we can't seem to work out is what and how significant the effect of man-made changes are. So basically it's a case of "let's try to keep our influence as low as possible and hope for the best".
What sickens me most about the whole subject is that the only reason the main culprits (coal burning power plants NOT cars) even still exist today is because of the so called "green" members of our society.
Ultimately I'm rather pessimistic about the whole issue though. IMO there's just no way that anything meaningful can be done about atmospheric pollution as long as the world is split up into independant states. What's the point of doing anything about emmisions in Europe or North America if China, India and South America are on the same planet? When I read about enviromental politics I often get the feeling some people are not entirely aware of the fact that the atmosphere and the laws of thermodynamics don't know anything about the country boarders we have drawn onto maps.
But this doesn't change the fact that digging and drilling out old fossil mass from the earth's crust and releasing it into the atmosphere by burning it doesen't sound like a clever idea by any measure. If you know anything about heat transfer systems you will be aware that the atmosphere is the only reason the temperatures on earth are suited to support current life forms and that any change to the chemical mixture of the air around this planet will influence this system. The thing we can't seem to work out is what and how significant the effect of man-made changes are. So basically it's a case of "let's try to keep our influence as low as possible and hope for the best".
What sickens me most about the whole subject is that the only reason the main culprits (coal burning power plants NOT cars) even still exist today is because of the so called "green" members of our society.
Ultimately I'm rather pessimistic about the whole issue though. IMO there's just no way that anything meaningful can be done about atmospheric pollution as long as the world is split up into independant states. What's the point of doing anything about emmisions in Europe or North America if China, India and South America are on the same planet? When I read about enviromental politics I often get the feeling some people are not entirely aware of the fact that the atmosphere and the laws of thermodynamics don't know anything about the country boarders we have drawn onto maps.
Last edited by J.B., .
I did the complete test but instead of giving me a result they tried to scam me into registering for a free Wii and even after entering fake data they still wouldn't tell. So what IQ do I get for failing completely? 
Anyway the test was pretty meaningless as there were no time limits whatsoever. I basically just thought about each problem until I was sure my answer was right.
Anyway the test was pretty meaningless as there were no time limits whatsoever. I basically just thought about each problem until I was sure my answer was right.
Why does it matter how your tyres react to the track when you're upside down?
I see what you mean with the curb forces though. I've added in blue how the trace of the wheel center point would look like in both cases. Sorry for my crappy paint skills.
I see. Not really very important then is it? Although I wouldn't know how much it changes the curb handling without trying it.
Can anyone shed some light on what this "Ray Model" they mention is all about and how it relates to LFS? What is it? How do they know LFS uses it?
Phew, that was close. I was just about to download it when you reminded me of why I stopped reading it.
I just avoid the RTL (German TV Station) propaganda machine. And MS didn't exactly make it hard for me to dislike him. But I won't go any further, I think there have been enough MS flamewars on the internets already.
It was definately his fault but I'm sure he still has pretty much the best successfull to unsuccessfull overtaking ratio of any driver in the world (especially since the majority of his incidents in F1 weren't his fault).
You can't look at an incident like this one and all of a sudden forget the 20 passes that he did in the same race without any problems. It's about how much risks you are prepared to take, he was taking a lot on Sunday, made a lot of great moves and sadly messed up one of them. Had he been taking less risks he may have not made it back through the field in the first place. And anyway, we're talking about Scott Pruett here. I remember an Indycar race where he took out the leader when he was 4 laps down himself.
Hope that didn't sound too fanboish.
You can't look at an incident like this one and all of a sudden forget the 20 passes that he did in the same race without any problems. It's about how much risks you are prepared to take, he was taking a lot on Sunday, made a lot of great moves and sadly messed up one of them. Had he been taking less risks he may have not made it back through the field in the first place. And anyway, we're talking about Scott Pruett here. I remember an Indycar race where he took out the leader when he was 4 laps down himself.
Hope that didn't sound too fanboish.
Drive in shift-f mode, names on, shift-f and the F menues mapped to steeering wheel. If I need information I quickly press the shift-f button and then turn it off again to concentrate on driving.
Click on "History made" at http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/seriesIndex?seriesId=2 for a short highlight clip. The incident was clearly Montoya's fault but he would have won anyway. Anyone found a clip that shows some more of his passes, there must have been loads?
I know that's how we're supposed to see it but I can't get my head around that logic. It's like the army putting pictures of people holding hands on their tanks. They should have waited until some of the planned technologies were actually being used in F1.
lol. If they only use them on the weekends it will only take about half a century to produce the same amount of power that it took to make the panels.
Last edited by J.B., .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG