Quote from MadCatX :

Actually, I don't think I am. 200 000 * 11110 + some randomization like first letter in caps gives about 4.4 E9 combinations. Even if you could try only 1000 passwords per second, it'd take just 51 days to crack it. A 9 chars long password containing randomly ordered letters, numbers and special chars leads to about 5.2 E16 combinations. At 1000 p/s it would take over 1.6 million years to get this one.

Also it's not like a hacker would try to type passwords into FB login page. He'd rather sniff the communication to get the hashed password and try to get to the password by calculating an appropriate hash for all possible passwords and comparing it to the sniffed hash.

I'm not arguing that words with some mixed digits and capital letters and are better. They are however sufficient to most internet accounts like facebook. Even if you look at the hash you have so many different options that you'd have facebook send you ''have you forgotten your password'' mails for few weeks. Maybe then you'd change your password.

Words and combinations of words are fine as long as you don't have any government secrets someone would want to snatch. The odds of someone trying to hack your account seriously and that he'll succeed in it before you notice are extremely small. Besides using random letters etc has the problem that if you have several you can't possibly remember them and cause you to write them down somewhere which will cause your friends or family finding out your password and using it, so much more likely.

Quote from MadCatX :

There you go, it's actually very possible to guess these, password like "moonpie774" is pretty vulnerable against dictionary attack. Even "zzzz" is safer in this respect as trying all combinations from "aaaa" to "zzzz" requires 456 976 attempts whereas "moonpie0" to "moonpie9999" needs only 11110 attempts.

Are you out of your mind? words not safe enough? Oxford dictionary contains over 200,000 words. Add some digits behind that and the chances (if the password is known to be a word) are one in 999 x 200,000 if you have 3 digits behind and the guesser will go through them randomly knowing there's at most 3 digits. The number of possibilities is near 200,000,000. Maybe you have some capital letters too. A few in a seemingly random order. That will make it impossible to guess your password even with few million tries (facebook has a protection so you can't even try those few million times).

In real life that ''hacker'' won't even know you way of creating the password (whether you have words, in which language, digits in front of the word, after the word or in the middle, etc.) so if you are on a site that has ''human identification'' it's impossible for anyone to guess your password unless you reveal parts of it somewhere or to someone or are using some stupid password like ''password'' or ''lol''

And Drift: LEt's assume the server replies to your ''software'' once a second. With only 200,000,000 possibilities it would still take 200,000,000/3600 hours to go through them all which is 55,555.555 hours. That is approximately 2315 days. Even if the software could get answers 100 times a second it would still take 23 days. Of course he won't need to go through all those but without getting lucky sacrificing a computer to hack someone's account 24/7 for even a week is something no one would do. HAckers usually just go through the most used passwords with everyone and to be honest they have much better chances at that than going at random to your account and wasting weeks, months, possibly years (if you have a good password) of figuring your password.

Last edited by Juzaa, Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:31.

Quote from sinbad :

Well what about his Monaco qualifying shenanigans in 06 (iirc)?

Attempting to gain an advantage by doing something intentionally unsporting or dishonest and hoping or expecting that you'll get away with it, is an attempt to cheat.

''hoping or expecting''? Tell me how do you know what was going on in Schumacher's mind? 2008 Hamilton crashed Räikkönen in the pit lane. If that had happened in last race to Massa would Hamilton have cheated? He would've been deemed as a cheater most definitely. If Schumacher had created the Monaco incident somewhere where he was not first would he still have cheated? If Schumacher had done the exact move Hamilton did to Massa against Villeneuve in -97 would that have been cheating?

This cheating definition you have means that we'll never know if a person is cheating. We only have guesses and since no one is guilty until proven if you can't prove what other's think that means that no one has ever cheated.

Schumacher did get a penalty for his move and everything ended up right so what's your point?

Quote from sinbad :

MSC did some pretty stupid/desperate things during his title battles with Alonso, so it's not like he's learned his lesson and changed his ways. Say what you like about Hamilton, we haven't seen him blatantly cheating.
And what about what Barrichello called the "most dangerous thing he's ever been through", last year at Hungary?

I don't remember any stupid/desperate thing against Alonso. MAybe you can enlighten me? With Barrichello's case it was another ''borderline case''. Nothing happened Barrichello had ''enough'' room and Schumacher didn't actually do any sudden moves. He did push the limits again and his move was ruled as forbidden but apart from the wall being few inches from Barrichello that move was exactly what Alonso did to Vettel in Imola. The problem with F1 is that you can force your opponent to out of the track if there's grass or sand there but if there's wall you can't.

Cheating is a term I don't understand in your comments. The only times I've seen cheating in F1 have been when someone has built a car that breaks the rules and the Piquet case. You can't cheat as a driver (apart form Piquet case) because your moves are either allowed or not allowed and if they are not allowed you get a penalty. There's no way of cheating for a driver if you are looking your own interests.

If you have a rule that says something is completely ''forbidden'' then doing that might be classified as cheating in some circumstances.

Let's take hockey as an example: Do you think roughing or high sticking is cheating? Maybe fights are cheating because you have a penalty for fighting?
The rules are there because they are the ''price'' for doing something that's not appropriate. Getting a penalty doesn't mean you've cheated and doing something without getting a penalty doesn't mean you cheated either. It's all about the referee (stewards in F1). At times getting a penalty or bending the rules can be useful for you. Is it cheating? -No.

And who cares if Hamilton hasn't cheated? Is that why he's in F1? Is that the ability that will grant him championships? I haven't seen Liuzzi cheat but does that make him the best driver and worthy of winning the championship?

Quote from Intrepid :

No, sure he doesn't 'turn in' on people apart from when he was disqualified from the championship for this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB3_UUyzEZQ

Some people really don't know their F1 history. He got away with it in Adelade... but couldn't repeat it in Jerez 97.

There's a vital difference between Hamilton turning in and Schumacher turning in. Hamilton turned in on Massa because...well he didn't have a reason just made a mistake. Schumacher turned in on Villeneuve on purpose, trying to ensure his victory in the championship. I meant in my post that Schumacher doesn't just turn in on someone at random. Come on: Schumacher turned in at Villeneuve for the pure desire to win which got over him while Hamilton turned in at slower driver in a slower car for no reason.

It is because of drivers like Schumacher that we have specific rules because they are constantly driving on the edge of the rules bending them where possible and trying the limits.

Schumacher doesn't just turn in on people but at that time he figured it would win him a championship. He knew he had lost it when Villeneuve got past and tried the last thing he could to win. Schumacher's prime was in 2000-2004 with Ferrari. When did he turn in on someone during that time? He obviously learned from -97. Have you heard the saying ''never make the same mistake twice''. Schumacher was penalized for -97 and he didn't do it again. Hamilton was penalized in Monaco for crashing with Massa and look how much it took for him to repeat a similar mistake - an hour.

I don't know about you but if the last time Schumacher turned in on someone was in -97 I find that pretty amazing.

I wouldn't mind if Hamilton crashed few times a season and actually admitted he made a mistake and learned from it. The problem is that he makes similar mistakes all the time and doesn't admit those mistakes and hasn't learned from them. He has this talent but he's throwing it all away.

Quote from BlueFlame :

You don't understand do you, the person overtaking has to rely on the person being overtaken to yeild, or there will be a crash. You can't just ****in turn in on people. Oh wait, most people go by the Schumacher mentality, defend every CORNER, PIT ENTRY, RACE START and ****ing straight piece of road there is.

There is a reason why Schumacher is the most succesful driver in the history of F1. I don't know what you have a against him but you can't deny that his driving style works. You race by the rules and Schumacher knows it better than anyone else. Schumacher doesn't turn in on people (which Hamilton did in the last race btw.) but rather defends intelligently when he's in front. He does make bad calls at times but that's racing.

Are you seriously saying that if you are first and have a chance to win a race you won't defend your position because the driver behind you is faster? You fight 'till the end and that's what is great about motor racing. Would you rather watch famous battles between Schumacher and Häkkinen, Senna and Prost, etc. or would you like to see a race where there are no battles because of DRS that lets drivers to overtake only by pressing a button?

The overtaker relies on the overtaken after he's gotten side by side. Before that the driver in front relies on the driver behind not crashing him. When you crash from behind it's your fault 99 times out of 100.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Senna wasn't an ****, he made a statement, you either crash or let him through.

That sounds cool. Next time I'm racing in LFS I'll say to everyone that I'll crash them if they won't let me pass easily. Maybe they'll let me pass them without a fight after I've wrecked a few cars. Right...?

When did Senna say he'll crash everyone if they won't let him go? I've never heard that statement and I doubt you have either.

Also comparing Hamilton to Senna shows how little you have respect for the old Champion. Senna and Hamilton are not alike and Senna was much greater driver than Hamilton. Next you'll probably compare Coulthard and Prost and tell they were alike?

Just read this: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/94854
Isn't it strange that a three-time world champion says exactly what I've been saying all along?

After Button finishes second in the championship it will be hard for you to find out a word to describe his outstanding performance over Hamilton since you so often mention Hamilton ''thrashing'' Alonso. That gap between them was nothing and he still trashed Alonso so we might have to create a new word to describe how Button completely humiliated Hamilton this season (just kidding with Hamilton fans, don't take it too seriously)

Quote from BlueFlame :

I think when Schumacher got DT's only 10% of the F1 fraternity would dispute it, but when Hamilton gets one, its 60% disagree with them and 40% agree with them (most cases).

That's because there's more Hamilton fans here than Schumacher fans. I might also have something to do with the fact Hamilton ''being black''. I'm not defending him I'm just wondering about your opinions about Hamilton. In British GP this year Schumacher got a DT for a situation like Hamilton's. I didn't see you there complaining about that? Why? -because he deserved the penalty. (just as Hamilton did here) Schumacher at least had the balls to say he made a mistake.

Quote from BlueFlame :

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Why haven't I seen you complaining about Schumacher's penalties when he's destroyed his front wing and gotten a DT? Is the Dt for crashing only wrong if it happens to your favorite driver?

So now we are fighting whether Hamilton lost more time than Massa? The easiest way would be just to check their positions after Hamilton's DT. (which seems to be too hard for most of you since you're still arguing about it)

Hamilton was few seconds behind Massa after his DT. That's exactly where he should be after causing the collision so everything went as it should've had. Hamilton had the faster car and he's a faster driver (Massa has not been the same after his injury) so it's no wonder he was ahead of Massa in the results.

Hamilton got lucky with the Safety Car (Mclaren said him there'll be a safety car so let's start investigating about it) and drove the rest of the race well. He's actually lucky Vettel is so far in points because if he wasn't Hamilton might end up as a second driver for Button.

I'm waiting on more information about Räikkönen's situation and whether he'll drive Williams next year or not. I doubt Williams is nothing more to him than a year to get back in shape. If he drives Williams it will be only a year or two and then he'll be driving for Mclaren (if Hamilton gets sacked), Mercedes (Schumacher might retire after a year or two) or Red Bull (Webber won't be around for much longer and Räikkönen and Vettel are good friends)

Räikkönen won't satisfy for a bad car in F1 so he must have a path to a top team if he signs a contract with Williams. After he's driven enough rally he might even concentrate harder on F1 than before if that's what he wants to do.

I just can't see why people either think that ''Hamilton is always right'' or ''Everything Hamilton does is wrong''. For once BlueFlame is correct in this subject. Hamilton did nothing wrong: Massa tried to get a gap in front of him but couldn't defend his position and Hamilton got past him.

I don't know if there's a driver etiquette about overtaking in that position but Hamilton didn't do anything wrong according to the rules.


Vettel got the pole again and with Webber behind him slowing everyone down I suspect the race will be boring if it doesn't rain or if Webber doesn't mess up the start.

Go Schumacher! Great battle with Hamilton.

Quote from student :

There is a lot of data that they gave. The amount of prior scientific data is quite extensive.
http://futureofmankind.co.uk/B ... Beyond_A_Reasonable_Doubt

- Connection of A-bomb testing, explosions to ozone damage.
- Extraction of petroleum and natural gas from the Earth, damming of waters, construction of huge cities were major contributing factors to increased earthquake and volcanic activity.
- Specific information about Venus, unknown at the time, including: composition of atmospheric gases, surface temperatures, depth of clouds, wind speeds, atmospheric pressure, coloration, variation in terrain, etc.
- Semjase informed Meier that Mt. Chimborazo was highest mountain on Earth, contrary to Meier's belief that it was Mt. Everset. From the center of Earth in this case.

And a lot more.

The Plejaren don't want to talk to anybody for a lot reasons. And Billy Meier informed a lot scientists and policians about these matters many times. But they always ignored him. They still do.

"Why didn't anyone else see anything?" What do you mean?

"Why didn't it leave any sort of proof about itself?" What is it?

You naturally understand that your link is something written by a man who claims to have known all sorts of information before it was confirmed. Where is all this information he published (and evidence supporting it)?

'' I hope that each contact will be published in its entirety in the near future'' - Meaning he is waiting for some brake through which he'll claim to have know all this time. But was too busy to publish it. (according to your site the last visit was in mid 90's)

''The Plejaren don't want to talk to anybody for a lot reasons'' - Is quite common in every religion. Only the key members are allowed to ''see'' or ''hear'' the gods (in this case aliens) because this way no one can question the authority.

''And Billy Meier informed a lot scientists and policians about these matters many times'' When and where? Any proof? Besides lot's of scientists in history have known things to be true long before there has been enough proof to support them.

You also need to know that publishing a fact and knowing something is completely different. All your maniac refers to are the publishing dates of the complete studies. What you should do is find out when those things were first discussed. Then you'd see you were following a false prophet.

Quote from student :

Juzaa, also read this:
http://futureofmankind.co.uk/B ... _Of_Major_Ozone_Depletion

The book with information with published in 1978.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0960855823

"The first decreases in Antarctic total ozone were observed in the early 1980s over research stations located on the Antarctic continent."


Here is Nature Journal from 1985, the first scientific announcemnt about the matter.
http://www.nature.com/nature/j ... 15/n6016/pdf/315207a0.pdf

''Total ozone was lower in these months compared with previous observations made as early as 1957''

Can you disprove that Billy Meier released it in 1978? Can you prove that scientists released that information before 1978, before Billy Meier?

Ozone layer was observed in 1957 according to your site! Anyone could've guessed it was getting thinner (which people also did why on earth would they investigate it unless they thought it was getting thinner?) (also read MadCatX's post which proves you wrong) Scientific publishes are always published AFTER they are sure they are right. When this nobody (who gets frequent visits by imaginary aliens) wrote his book he bet on the winning horse. (which really wasn't hard)

Let's assume you are correct for a second. Here's a few questions:
Why didn't the alien give any real data? Why did it talk to a nobody instead of someone who could've done something? Why didn't anyone else see anything? Why didn't it leave any sort of proof about itself?
There are no answers because it wasn't real.

Quote from student :

Before you're calling for nurse you could read what I linked with an open mind. There is actual proof for what I'm writing.

And where is your proof? How come all these UFO's look different? Why do species which is advanced enough to travel to distant galaxies have different types of space ships sent to here (which look like aluminum cans btw.) when it's quite sure they should have one solution that's the best?

Also your article is just text, not a reliable source. If I wrote in some Internet site that I saw a five-eyed 10 feet tall dinosaur 15 years ago which explained today's technology would you believe me? Can you show me a real article that actually dates back to 1970's and explains something (not a guess, explanation) that we didn't know back then?

Back to the real subject,

It would be foolish not to think life outside our planet wouldn't exist. Meeting an intelligent alien life form is nearly impossible because of the amount of suitable planets and the distances between them. Universe is simply too vast to explore. Also we'd have to have similar technology to be able to find each others (not to mention communicating aftrwards)

Bottas is the champion in GP3!

He'll be the next Finnish F1 driver for sure. He said after the victory that he'd like to drive F1 next year and that he thinks he's ready for it but I seriously hope Häkkinen (who is his manager btw) can talk him around and get him to a good team in GP2 to gather experience and after one season there get a good place in F1 for 2013.

Quote from Mustafur :

Maldonados incident is more like The overtake Hamilton did on Schumacher through there earlier in the race only that time there wasn't a blind Venezuelan who thinks he owns the road taking himself out of the race by just taking the apex, thinking hamilton can somehow cease to exist before entering the corner.

I know you don't like the idea of not blaming Hamilton for everything wrong in your life but to be honest, the incident was Pretty much the same in every way to the Hamilton/Button incident at Canada, infact Kobayashi was in the same position as Hamilton(in Canada) was when the incident occured, only this time the instigator was the one who got the damage.

How was it the same? You are not proving anything by saying something is so. Just saying something doesn't make it true. I could say that Schumacher Villenuve -97 was just like Hamilton Kobayashi but does it make it true?

BTW. even Coulthard thinks Vettel's victories and outperforming everyone isn't as much about the car as you think. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/spo ... -ever-in-Formula-One.html

Quote from BlueFlame :

Do us all a favour, and just admit, you are biassed againstHamilton, if you don't you're in denial and just spamming the theads.

You apply a different race craft logic ESPECIALLY for Hamilton. You're a retard. You're even bringing things up that aren't relavent, to prove your warped point.

And what exactly is my warped point? And what have I said that was not relevant or true? I do know fastest lap is not bulletproof when looking at race speed but in many cases it actually shows who was the fastest driver in the race. You are saying that I'm biased but at the same time When Vettel wins it's ''because his car is 200 times better than the others'' and when Vettel doesn't win it's because ''Hamilton is a god''. Not to mention that when Hamilton crashes even when he's himself admitted he made a mistake and that it was his fault (which shows some growing up in the past few races) you are still arguing how Hamilton did nothing wrong. (which shows you have not grown up). And still I am the biased one?

Most of your arguments are ''you are wrong'' and then adding something stupid like how two completely different situations are exactly the same and how crashing someone who's outside is somehow better than crashing someone who's inside(!)?

You all think that Maldonado's move was wrong and he's 100% to blame. So do I. But when you are defending Hamilton it's something How Kobayashi had room (like few inches to the grass) and how he turned in a bit. Have you watched how Maldonado hit Hamilton? Hamilton had exactly the same amount of room as Koba did and actually Hamilton turned in a bit more than Kobayashi. You just refuse to even look any videos and see for yourself because you must know you are wrong.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Yea, its his fault, but it's a justified mistake, because DRS was involved, he didn't just shut the door on someone, eitherway, using the logic people used for the Maldonado incident at Monaco, the car who is infront can do whatever the **** they want, turn in on people or whatever and it's ok. So that logic means Hamilton didn't do anything wrong

You are seriously comparing these 2 incidents with each others claiming they are alike? Senna's first corner was way more like Maldonado incident than this one.

Hamilton was not clearly in front. Kobayashi braked earlier than Hamilton which is why Hamilton hits Koba's front tire with his rear one. They were practically side by side before the braking zone. Maldonado's ram in quali is quite like Hamilton's hit with Koba if you actually want to compare. The only difference is that Maldonado did it on purpose in a middle of a straight where Hamilton did it by accident in braking zone.

And no, Hamilton didn't shut the door from Kobayashi. The door was to his right and he tackled Kobayashi who was left of him so that means he completely prevented Kobayashi to get even near the door which made it useless to shut the door when Kobayashi was in no shape to get there.

Quote from Kandis :

Why would you like to push your car to the limit while being in the 1st position? Your argument is so invalid

Usually we Vettel has won the differences have been only a few seconds. Isn't that a reason to drive hard? What about when Vettel hasn't been the first? He hasn't gotten fastest laps then.

Hamilton has 2 wins. He has a fastest lap in one and a second fastest in the other. Why is that? Why didn't he just cruise around?

Here's a little statistics for you. In the 6 races we have had where Vettel did not win 4 times the winner has had the fastest lap in his name. Are you suggesting that Hamilton, Button and Alonso are stupid because they drove faster than the others when they were leading?

Also in most races Vettel has not won by a huge margin. In 3 races he's won the margin has been less than 3.5 seconds to the second driver. 2 times it has been about 10 seconds and once 20 seconds. In 3 races he's won I can guarantee he's been pushing as hard as he can. Also in the ones he's been second with only few seconds to the first he'd be a fool not to push.

Quote from Mustafur :

Um for obvious situations, Redbull where faster at Spa outright, but Hamilton had slight damage still got 2nd, in Monaco he was hampered by the red flag in Q3 from perez, but other then that the car really hasn't had an advantage, maybe at Spain but the car lacked Qualifying pace by up to a second.

Button's fastest lap was 0.4 seconds faster than Vettel's fastest lap in Spa's race and Hamilton's speed in quali with a damaged car just shows Mclaren was probably faster than RBR. Because RBR is traditionally a bit better in quali I dare say Mclaren and RBR were quite even in the qualifying.

In Monaco Hamilton did suffer from red flag but remember that Hamilton also messed up his qualifying lap after the red flags. His mistake cost him at least 4 places in the grid. I also remember Hamilton saying after qualifying that they were faster than RBR and without the red flag he would've been on the pole.

In Canada Button had the fastest lap which was 0.3 seconds faster than Vettel's so they did have an advantage there too.

RBR's cars are designed for qualifying and so far in every race RBR's advantage from qualifying has diminished or disappeared completely. Because of the DRS in most races (Monaco is probably the only exception) you have been able to overtake by pressing a button so driving behind is actually not a real issue because you can get past if you are faster. The issue is that while Vettel has driven constantly good lap times and avoided mistakes (except for Germany and Canada) the others have not been able to have the same consistancy.

So far Vettel has had ONE (1!) fastest lap of the race where Webber, Button and Hamilton all have several fastest laps of the race. So Vettel's performance hasn't actually been that much about speed but consistency. In qualifying Vettel has driven fast but in races he's not been the fastest but rather the most consistent driver.

Quote from Mustafur :

notice how in those conditions he wasn't at the front, like vettel the car works perfect for qualifying and in most cases is faster, once your at the front everything works for you.

And here we come to the important question...Why wasn't he at front when after all in every single one of those situations Hamilton had the best car?
In Monaco you could say the team messed up a bit but so did Hamilton. In Canada Hamilton did start 2 places ahead of Button and in last race Hamilton did start the race from second place.

In Canada Button had already overtaken Hamilton. (if he's so good at driving in front how come he had fallen behind button?)
In Monaco Hamilton made a mistake in his qualifying lap which cost him quite much.
In last race Hamilton started as second but couldn't keep his place (because he's so good at driving in front?)

Now I know in Canada and in Monaco Hamilton's position in the back wasn't 100% his fault but you can't deny there's a pattern here.

Quote from Mustafur :

If Hamilton had the privledge of having the fastest car then he wouldn't need to risk much, and anyone that says button is better is clearly blind, no matter how many times Hamilton cocks up he will still have the highest points tally by the end, which highlights he's massive talent compared to button.

And btw I think the incident was hamiltons fault, in the same way it was buttons fault at Canada, they both failed to notice the driver was along side and caused an incident via following the proposed racing line.

Button had the fastest car this weekend if you look at the race. He even said he had the best car before the race. So why didn't Hamilton have one too? I remember Hamilton starting from second place so he did have the second fastest car for sure. Not to mention that in Hamilton's accident Koba hadn't pitted but Hamilton had. So actually that situation had absolutely nothing to do with having the fastest car. Didn't you watch the race? His accident with Button also had nothing to do with having the fastest car in the race (Button did win Canada) and in Monaco he HAD the best car (even said so himself) but messed up his quali (with a little help from his team) and was again behind slower cars.

So you see, actually all those collisions he's had have NOTHING to do with not having the fastest car. In fact I dare say when Hamilton's had the fastest car he's messed up more than when he didn't have the best car.

And if Hamilton keeps messing up this much Button will be ahead of him in the points after season as he is in front of him now. Just simple statistics. If he improves and doesn't crash this often he might be ahead of Button.

Quote from pearcy_2k7 :

The pictures where there to show that kobi did have some room to play with and he chose not to, and he did turn right at the point of impact, you can see it on the video for yourself, you can tell he's turning right because the front tyres are further away from the white line than his rears. You can't call it a stupid move because every driver does the same thing, i even saw rosberg do it today but he didn't hit the other car, slight misjudgement from hamilton that wasn't helped by kobi.

I don't know if you will pay me either and yes i do want to prove a point, that your full of shit, taking £20 from you would make it even sweeter, just shows that even you don't believe in what comes out of your mouth.

Wait..now you're saying Kobayashi should have turned away from Hamilton while braking. Because of...? So everyone should just evade Hamilton when he crashes them? Do you know what happens when you try to turn when braking hard? Your tires lock and you don't turn at all. When you are braking you can not turn the car at all. You might be able to do a minor adjustment but that's it. You need your tires to keep on rolling to make you turn. If you are using all the grip you have for braking turning the wheel will only lock your tires.

And I don't see how betting will prove anything. We'll see the results after the season no matter how much you bet and then we'll see who's right. But so far Button has driven better and you can't deny that.

Since arguing you is as useless as trying to explain advanced math to a 2-YEAR-OLD I think I'll just ignore your posts because it's not worth anything trying to argue to someone who's trolling or just plain stupid and doesn't understand basic racing rules or how the cars behave.

Hope you'll grow up some day and find out how things work in real life.