Your goggles apparantly show different things than mine
He does have support from many different people with different nationalities, but then perhaps I would be right in saying, that the most fanatic supporters of Hamilton are the brits? His British fans seem to have formed a religion around him and his 'legendary' skill.
That's just the thing: noone ever seems to respond to proper arguments without a good flame thrown in to get their attention. Just like now
I wouldn't dismiss anyones opinion based on their nationality, but I would question the reasoning behind it more so than if they had a different nationality. It's a lot easier to praise someone when national pride is involved, wouldn't you say?
There's just nothing Hamilton has, in my opinion, that puts him up there with the legends. I just do not see what a lot of people seem to? He's obviously a greatly skilled driver, put into arguably the fastest car in his debut season with the full support of his team with an experienced driver as his team-mate. Of course he did well! It doesn't take a great driver ten years to drive an F1 car fast, any superb driver from GP2 can win races in the fastest car.
So I'll repeat myself and hope it's heard:
"Put a great driver in a great car and he'll have great successes. Put a great driver in a bad car and you'll get Adrian Sutil - Hamilton and Sutil are not worlds apart in skill level really, and I for one would love to see Hamilton prove himself in a Force India, or Torro Rosso, or Williams. His major strength (and weakness) appears to be his self-confidence, so let's see what's left of that once he can't have a shot at the win every race.
However, we know that won't happen since McLaren has struck gold and will never give that up as long as Hamilton is succesful. This means that even though he might get written down in the history books as a numerical legend, in the hearts and minds of many he won't be the same as Schumacher or Senna, he just doesn't have the history in F1."
Bad example
Jos Verstappen is an **** (pardon language) who doesn't love his sport. He didn't participate in an A1GP race -- and the rest of the season I think -- because his paycheck was late. Boohoo, I don't think the guy is liked by anyone in the Netherlands anymore since that whole debacle. In the end of course he was paid out the full million dollars for the season as was stated in the contract and he can choke on it for all I care.
Skipping on a race in front of his home-crowd at Zandvoort because his team couldn't pay him yet is very very low. Anyway, this thread is not about him so I'll end my rant early :>
The problem with Hamilton is that he's British, and the majority of F1 followers in this forum are... British. I (and many others I'm sure) have trouble taking people seriously when they boast about a driver from their own country. It seems like there's this unconditional love that gets stronger the more you oppose Hamilton's monkey-business.
I mean... I'm glad you guys have another (likely) champion again, but hold out on the legendary-driver talk until he's a legendary driver in maybe 10 years...
What Tristan said also counts in a big way: yes, he's proven himself in karting and GP2 and all that where everyone has competitive equipment etc etc. That's the whole problem! We want to see Hamilton perform well in F1 with non-competitive equipment! Alonso has been doing it all season and he's a double world champion whom has now proven himself to be capable of competing after strings of bad results and bad equipment. Now, I know that Alonso and Hamilton were equally matched last season, but that absolutely doesn't mean that Hamilton would've done the same thing to Renault that Alonso has done this season and therein lies the big difference here. Put a great driver in a great car and he'll have great successes. Put a great driver in a bad car and you'll get Adrian Sutil - Hamilton and Sutil are not worlds apart in skill level really, and I for one would love to see Hamilton prove himself in a Force India, or Torro Rosso, or Williams. His major strength (and weakness) appears to be his self-confidence, so let's see what's left of that once he can't have a shot at the win every race.
However, we know that won't happen since McLaren has struck gold and will never give that up as long as Hamilton is succesful. This means that even though he might get written down in the history books as a numerical legend, in the hearts and minds of many he won't be the same as Schumacher or Senna, he just doesn't have the history in F1.
I mean... I'm glad you guys have another (likely) champion again, but hold out on the legendary-driver talk until he's a legendary driver in maybe 10 years...
What Tristan said also counts in a big way: yes, he's proven himself in karting and GP2 and all that where everyone has competitive equipment etc etc. That's the whole problem! We want to see Hamilton perform well in F1 with non-competitive equipment! Alonso has been doing it all season and he's a double world champion whom has now proven himself to be capable of competing after strings of bad results and bad equipment. Now, I know that Alonso and Hamilton were equally matched last season, but that absolutely doesn't mean that Hamilton would've done the same thing to Renault that Alonso has done this season and therein lies the big difference here. Put a great driver in a great car and he'll have great successes. Put a great driver in a bad car and you'll get Adrian Sutil - Hamilton and Sutil are not worlds apart in skill level really, and I for one would love to see Hamilton prove himself in a Force India, or Torro Rosso, or Williams. His major strength (and weakness) appears to be his self-confidence, so let's see what's left of that once he can't have a shot at the win every race.
However, we know that won't happen since McLaren has struck gold and will never give that up as long as Hamilton is succesful. This means that even though he might get written down in the history books as a numerical legend, in the hearts and minds of many he won't be the same as Schumacher or Senna, he just doesn't have the history in F1.
So, with the first full season (for many of us, at least) coming to an end, is everyone planning to continue? I probably won't race as much in the coming season, but as long as I can keep improving relatively easily I'll put effort into it.
Heck, I'm in for a year anyway, so I owe it to myself to keep racing
Heck, I'm in for a year anyway, so I owe it to myself to keep racing
The whole point is that you don't have to spend minutes (!) sexing someone up when you could be done in seconds and get right back to teabagging people in Halo.
It's the difference between Domenicali shouting at Raikkonen to let Massa pass him, and Raikkonen deciding for himself to let Massa pass in order to keep him in the championship. Therefor it's not a team-order, but a drivers own decision.
Ferrari seems to be crumbling after the exit of Jean Todt and Micheal Schumacher anyway (or well, their change of function) and the only thing stopping them from freefalling is their tight connection to the FIA.
It seems likely to me that in the next 10 years the strength of Ferrari will vaporise until we're left with an underdog team with top drivers (and top salaries) much like Renault/Alonso right now.
We'll see though, as nothing is sure. It just appears to me that Massa and Raikkonen are not terribly good team-builders like Alonso and (to a lesser extent, afaik) Hamilton.
It seems likely to me that in the next 10 years the strength of Ferrari will vaporise until we're left with an underdog team with top drivers (and top salaries) much like Renault/Alonso right now.
We'll see though, as nothing is sure. It just appears to me that Massa and Raikkonen are not terribly good team-builders like Alonso and (to a lesser extent, afaik) Hamilton.
I was going to post this actually! I'm not sure about the graphics, but the physics in GT3 were a lot better than in GT4, although that certainly is not an achievement, it is amazing to notice that they've gone backwards at least once. They actually still had the "simulation" tyres in GT3, which allowed some sort of drifting not too far from what GT5P has done.
That said, Forza 2 is miles ahead of GT5P - wheel or no wheel.
Couldn't have expressed it better myself.
I'll ask you again, why was Kovalainen in that position? Hint: because he had to mash his brakes and avoid his rampaging team-mate.
In videos you can see Kovalainen (and very clearly, too) brake hard after Hamilton locks up, right in front of him and only after that being able to steer right again -- I really don't see how anyone can argue that Kovalainen did anything wrong there. That's just blaming the bullet for killing someone.
Just to defend Kovalainen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SLMIXpsOq0
It's only going to be up for a few minutes I guess, but just watch his car: he gets a bit of Hamilton in his face, then has to brake hard when Hamilton locks up right in front of him, and inevitably runs into Raikkonen.
Hamilton forces Raikkonen wide, and Kovalainen has to brake to avoid Hamilton, and meets up with Raikkonen after that. So who is at fault really?
Still, not worthy of a penalty, and Massa getting a free point for his own reckless driving is just... FIA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SLMIXpsOq0
It's only going to be up for a few minutes I guess, but just watch his car: he gets a bit of Hamilton in his face, then has to brake hard when Hamilton locks up right in front of him, and inevitably runs into Raikkonen.
Hamilton forces Raikkonen wide, and Kovalainen has to brake to avoid Hamilton, and meets up with Raikkonen after that. So who is at fault really?
Still, not worthy of a penalty, and Massa getting a free point for his own reckless driving is just... FIA.
Well, like I said I definitely don't think he needed to be penalised, but can you actually truthfully say it was a clever move?
This race pretty much proved to me that Alonso is still top dog in Formula 1, and by a pretty large margin. Heck, I really hate the guy's guts, but as an all-round driver he has no competition -- he can build a team, drive fast in qualification, drive fast in the race, keep his head cool when others can't (*cough* Hamilton), isn't afraid to pick up shit and fling it at people... good stuff.
I hope he stays at Renault and finally decides to really settle into the team like Schumacher did at Ferrari.
* No, he shouldn't have been penalised for his T1 attack, but what was he thinking in the first place? I thought his plan was to stay cool and pick up points for the championship instead of raging for victory like an idiot, just like last year?
I hope he stays at Renault and finally decides to really settle into the team like Schumacher did at Ferrari.
* No, he shouldn't have been penalised for his T1 attack, but what was he thinking in the first place? I thought his plan was to stay cool and pick up points for the championship instead of raging for victory like an idiot, just like last year?
brb store! I almost forgot
This is why I'll never understand hardcore mathematics. As soon as the step is made from tangible numbers and figures to infinites and other intangible theories I'll lock up and start pondering on their existence instead of applying them. I guess the problem lies in the fact that I don't see maths as theory, but as something practical and tangible. Two systems of tangible and intangible numbers (which is one system if maths is just theory) collide and cause some sort of confusion for me. One plus one can be visually explained, whereas 1 + 0.9(9) cannot, or at least not afaik.
As a person who is allergic to mathematics I really have a hard time getting my head around the whole thing. I understand the idea behind 0.999(inf) = 1, but it still doesn't seem to me as if the former is the same type of number as the latter. It's not possible to write an infinite string of numbers, so to me the idea of 0.99999 = 1 remains a completely dry and intangible.
Would it mean that 1+0.999999 (infinite) = 2? or 1.99999999 (infinite) or both? If it's both, then why do we even use 0.999? Is it just to make up for the inconvenient 'paradox' of 1 / 0.3 = 0.33333 * 3 = 0.999?
Doesn't that just mean our whole foundation for mathematics is flawed in some way? I'm sure its my tendency to think visually instead of mathematically that is causing me some conflicting thoughts when thinking about this, but it all seems odd and wrong to me :P
Would it mean that 1+0.999999 (infinite) = 2? or 1.99999999 (infinite) or both? If it's both, then why do we even use 0.999? Is it just to make up for the inconvenient 'paradox' of 1 / 0.3 = 0.33333 * 3 = 0.999?
Doesn't that just mean our whole foundation for mathematics is flawed in some way? I'm sure its my tendency to think visually instead of mathematically that is causing me some conflicting thoughts when thinking about this, but it all seems odd and wrong to me :P
He's an idiot, a poor critic, a bad loser and a bad boss. Someone had to say it really.
Wait until you get into the races where going wide once can lose you two places. Not that easy to win anymore
The bugs never really bothered me in the Witcher, it was the sort of stretched out gameplay -- the game just didn't feel concise enough for a singleplayer RPG. I loved everything else about it though.
Wow, you seem to have a lot of confidence in Hamilton's ability to win a championship based on his own ability, rather than anyone else's bad luck :P
Free practices are used to test setups, tyres, fuel loads and generally anything that has nothing to do with trying to drive as fast as possible. Therefore, they mean nothing with regards to the actual difference in speeds on the track. 9/10 says that Alonso won't be in the top 5 for qualifying. If he is, then his fuel load will be drastically different. If he manages to outqualify the Ferrari's and McLarens and be on a similar fuel strategy I'll eat my words and hail him as the greatest racing genius of our time.
Practices don't mean anything.
We're also carbon-based life forms
It's far less likely for complex life to evolve on a planet 3x the size (or mass?) of Earth. If gravity is too strong or too weak life will have trouble evolving. If the atmospheric conditions aren't right; same issue. The thing is that our planet is floating around in what we believe to be the perfect zone for live to start & evolve on. Not hot enough to make water boil, not cool enough to freeze (the majority of) it, an atmosphere and ozone layer to protect from radiation and keep the heat in. Life might exist on much less habitable planets, but that life is far less likely to evolve into sentient beings because of the limitations of their environment. Limitations of scale prevent something from living on huge planets with many times the Earths gravity.
The other points mentioned have all been thoroughly speculated on by anthropologists, physicists and biologists. The general concensus is that advanced alien life indeed needs to have the following functions:
- Sight (or any variation advanced enough to work as good)
- Communication
- Ability to manipulate tools
- Curiosity (if we'd all stayed in our caves, nothing would've happened)
That leaves us with the knowledge we have from our own planet to start thinking about the way aliens might look, and we almost always end up with the same basic features that do resemble humans. Yes, it would be really cool to see a 9-footed lion with claws in his mouth and wings on its back, but it's impractical and evolution (as we believe it works) should always move to roughly a symmetrical being with arms, legs, hands and a head. Variations are possible, but I doubt that if we find life in its biological form (the species may have integrated entirely with its own technology and become a completely different species) that they are much different to ourselves.
Oh, and more on topic:
Crop circles are definitely real, but I really doubt that they are extraterrestrial in nature
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG