You don't pick and choose, but you have preset criteria? That's picking and choosing.
Pretty much the only thing the trailer left out the anti-climax that was Lauda pulling out of the racing, handing the championship to Hunt.
Oh, uh.. Spoiler.
Flash is also terrible because you instantly are incapable of reaching anyone using an iPhone, which is a significant portion of the population. If the point is to reach people and get your work out there, you need to use a format that can reach as many platforms as possible.
I was thinking about using it, but I don't like any of the galleries I've seen on their sites. I'm giving AllYou.net a try and I like the subtle animation/fade out in their galleries when you're browsing pages. All the behance ones I've tried just go blank and load up the next page; not as nice, from an experience standpoint. Visually AllYou, Behance and Squarespace et al can look the same so in that regard it doesn't matter which I use.
I'd recommend just using something like Wordpress, Behance, Squarespace, AllYou, or any other such site. All of them work pretty well for that sort of thing, are quick to set up, no coding needed, and allow enough personalization. Many also offer multiple font possibilities that you would otherwise have to pay for which can help make a nicer looking site too.
I think you missed the sensationalist satire in his post, there.
But that actually happened back then. Maybe only 30 flips instead of 32, but still. Fire was the number one fear for drivers since it's painful and very likely to happen when you're going that fast, in a hot metal missile without a safety fuel cell.
Oh I've touched many. Just never driven one. =/
Post of the year. If not for the laughs, then just for the nostalgic Simpsons tie-in.
Bahaha
I'm fully ready to see a "Driven 2: The Prequel" with this one, but on the other hand, I do respect Ron Howard and I do think it will be a decent movie. It will probably irritate the tits off me that Lauda's got the wrong wing on the car, but I'll try to let that die off and just enjoy it for what it is. I'm mostly curious to see how the racing scenes are handled, as the tracks are just not the same as they were back then so there must be a lot of creativity at play. Hopefully there's enough on-track action to keep it a racing movie.
I was happy for her. Then I saw her birthday, and now I'm just sad for myself. I've got over 7 years on her and I'm sitting in an office without a race car in sight. Sigh... I feel so old.
Pssst... I'm available for some contract work. Just sayin'...
That's more or less how I see it, too, as far as portability is concerned. A tablet is just a large smartphone that doesn't make conventional phone calls, really.
I'd get the phone. I, personally, would only buy a tablet to use as a 'universal remote' of sorts to connect everything in my house for media purposes. I'd never use it for the internet. If I'm on the go and I need to check something, I've got my phone. If I'm at home I've got my computer. I have no other need for a tablet at all.
The biggest problem, graphically, is the jagged edges on high contrast things (like a sharp highlight on a tiny radius), but that's alleviated by downsampling; which most people don't have a powerful enough rig for. The lighting and raindrops and all that jazz is part of the engine and those screenshots are raw shots from the sim that are not edited (except for cropping and resizing). Your mileage may vary, though; I've not had my graphics THAT amazing, either, and I run mostly maxed out. It's mostly just getting that one choice angle in the right light that really makes a quality image, and you never get that while you're racing because you're never in the right setting :P
Yep! Say what you will about the physics, but the graphics engine is damned impressive.
Right now (don't know about full release) there is a plethora of options to tweak near every aspect of it, as well, and some users have come up with stuff that looks incredibly realistic. AC, out of the box, looks more realistic but pCARS does have the edge with the technology being used and, at the moment, the customizability. There was a discussion at one point about what 'feel' the graphics should have by default, and how many (if any) options for this feel there should be at release. It's interesting to say the least.
It took quite a while for Mitsu to get the needed reference to them, so exterior work only just restarted recently IIRC, and there's some other higher priority vehicles in the works at the moment I think.
FYI: A girl can still get her period when she's pregnant. It's not even that uncommon, really.
Lamborghinis should be ridiculous, and totally bonkers. BUT, they should also be beautiful. This only ticks off the first box, not the second. It's an absolutely hideous mess.
I wouldn't say over-designed. Design implies that there is method and reason to something; this doesn't have that. It's tacked-on bits that are supposed to look functional, but really, they're not all that functional. The car is too much of a mess, there will be far too many turbulent air zones. Cleaner is quicker. That's the problem with many modern supercars; I like James May's quote "..dressed with the tinsel of high performance."
Yup. Having that A-pillar close to the right side of my face feels so awkward, but I'd get used to it quick if I had to.
Only someone who isn't married would say that
Bingo.
I thought that's what happens when you get married?
I've always had trouble walking to the right of a lamppost.
The only thing for me would be getting used to the different view. At least, it affects me in games. Never driven a RHD car in real life so I couldn't say, but when I tried RHD cockpit in LFS.. Ooof...
Then you run into legal issues with the software developer giving the OK to copywritten content.
There's only one road in the capital?
Wank is the perfect word there. lol
The rF community does indeed have standards. Low ones, but standards none-the-less.
This kind of information varies from one manufacturer to another, and one car to another sometimes. It is, though, the biggest possible technical benefit to licensing, though. Of course, the people who are bought in by shiny red Italian cars probably don't care about the specific attention to detail in this regard. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
In theory, yes! In practice, though, I've heard that most physics engines have to be simplified for real-time gaming to the point that this isn't totally possible. Don't know if that's still the case, but it was at one time.
The vows themselves are not binding. The marriage itself is; there is no law against infidelity. As said all you need to do, legally, to be wed is both sign a piece of paper, show ID, and not be already married. Everything else is extra and based on tradition. Tradition is not law.
I am my own. I am not defined by my relationship. It plays a big role in my life, a massive role, but it does not define me. The same way my common-law wife is not defined by me or our relationship. We don't belong to each other, we work together.
The nature of marriage is a promise that you won't stray. But a promise is not legally binding. The only thing that is legally binding is the paper you sign that says you are married and know of no reason that you legally cannot be.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that she has to be dependent on you. There's a difference between being a woman and being a slave. I'm sure you treat her well, but I'm also sure that she is not dependent on you for everything (even if she is a home-maker; she probably worked before and could again if she chose to).
In a partnership, no one is wholly dependent. You may fill different roles (should, really, as each has their own strengths to form a stronger partnership) but you'd both be equal.
I agree on that; it is a statement. But many people don't need that kind of statement. Especially not one that often costs tens of thousands of dollars.
You don't need a lawyer. It is advisable, but it is not a requirement.
I'd imagine laws on marriage are more or less the same in most of the 'western world.' I'm not saying marriage is a falsity, and I agree that it is tradition. What I'm saying is that vows and promises are not legally binding, and that not getting married does not mean that you are not committed.
[EDIT] Oh yes; Sorry for calling you a neanderthal. That was a bit over the top. And I'm happy to hear you treat your wife well.
Last edited by MAGGOT, .
It's actually a domestic conjugal partnership. Read through the standard vows and it's pretty explicitly stated. Anything saying that anyone owns anything is some kind of twisted view. And is probably in the bible, which we all know is BS anyways.
Gender roles have nothing to do with only wanting a dependent woman. You can be a 'male' and still treat someone with respect. You can be a 'female' and still be independent. It's not black and white, and it all still falls into gender roles if you want it to. Women aren't useless creatures only made to pop out babies and cook meals; they live and breathe, too, and have their own train of thought (though, admittedly, some are batshit crazy, but that's beside the point). They are just as capable as making it in life as men are. Believing they should be dependent is not gender-conforming, it's elitist.
I do consider myself to have quite 'modern' views (and in some cases, it's more that I just don't give a damn that truly having a modern view). Marriage, to a point, is just a piece of paper. It's easily destroyed, too, if both parties can be amicable. That has absolutely nothing with not being able to commit. I am fully willing to commit; what does a piece of paper have to do with anything? For the record, I'm not against marriage, but holding it up a divine pedestal is odd in my mind. What is the difference between being common law or married? A piece of paper (and maybe a couple different tax issues), but the two are fundamentally the exact same. Someone who says that people living common law can't commit had been deluded into thinking that marriage is the be-all and end-all. Marriage is as easily destroyed as a common-law partnership. It's just more expensive.
Yes, (most) women want a guy who is capable of extolling the virtues of masculinity. To a point. Most women don't want a massive pile of twitching muscles that can kill a lion by looking at it. They want a middle-ground. They want someone who's masculine but still accepts them as an equal.
Actually, adultery is not illegal (there is absolutely no law in a civilized country that says you can not cheat on your spouse. Some backwards (probably highly religious) countries may have this, but that's a different story all together). It is grounds for a divorce, but at that point, any couple can be divorced at any time for any reason so long as they both sign the paper.
Also, the vows themselves are not legally binding. The legal part is the marriage license that lists you and your spouse as being legally wed, and makes you eligible for tax incentives. The vows themselves are 100% moot, legally speaking. From a legal point of view, all you have to do to get married is show up at the legal building of choice (City hall, court house, wherever your town has these papers), show your ID and sign the license. That is it. Anything else that you know from a marriage ceremony is absolutely not legally binding and completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. It is all based on tradition and the wishes of the parties involved. That's it.
Last edited by MAGGOT, .
Kills some time while waiting for renders to finish.
Nope. In addition to just being wrong, you also don't seem to know what a fact is. (For the record, just because some girls do that, doesn't mean they all do, doesn't mean every independent girl will, and doesn't mean it is the norm.) I'm a nice guy, and I've never been drained of anything. Being nice doesn't mean being a doormat. It means not being a complete douche. I'm a nice guy, I always treat the girls I'm with with respect, but I will not take BS. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that; especially with your neanderthal views on... well... everything.
And, for the record, I've never dated a dependent woman, either. Every girl I've dated for any appreciable amount of time has been able to hold their own in life.
Independent doesn't mean she'll take everything you have. Independent means that she can functional without constant support. Why would I want a woman that I have to do everything for? I have my own life to tend to, thanks, I don't need to do it twice to make sure she doesn't forget to breathe. Also, I hate stupidity. It eats away at me like a virus. I will never, ever, date a stupid person. Ever. A girl who is dependent is most likely a stupid person as well. Smart is sexy.
Furthermore, someone who is wholely dependent on you would make one hell of a shite mother. Being a mother is completely the opposite of dependent. If she can't function without you, how in the hell is she going to care for a child?
Of course, again, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Someone who can't solve a very simple arithmetic equation probably had no business being in a relationship, anyways. Or procreating.
[EDIT] Oh yes, one more thing; your cautionary note about getting stuck with a woman and baby; THAT will not happen with an independent woman. That will only happen with a girl who needs to depend on someone else. So, yea... You're wrong again.
Telling her not to see someone is not being supportive or helpful. Sure, let her know your concerns if they really are that strong, but if you honestly think that she'd be unfaithful, what are you doing with her in the first place? If you think she'd leave you for someone else, then let it be. Obviously you're not the one she wants. Voice concerns, but never tell her what to do. All that will do is breed resentment.
There's a difference between keeping things to yourself and being controlling.
IIRC the BMW Z4 GT3 is in there (or, will be in 1.0, not in the preview). As it's moddable, I'm sure someone will add to that, as well.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG