First thing i would do is phone BT and ask them to do a live test on the line.
If that comes back positive i'd then test each cable one by one, it could be something as simple as a loose connection in one of the plugs, it usually is
. If they're all ok then check the hardware in isloation, i.e the routers, adaptors etc. It doesn't sound like a PC/software problem.
There is a possibility you're simply overloading the system, but that depends on how many different internets, phone lines and Sky TV connections you're running at the same time. But generally that shouldn't be a problem, that just tends to slow things down rather than cut the signal suddenly.
If that comes back positive i'd then test each cable one by one, it could be something as simple as a loose connection in one of the plugs, it usually is
. If they're all ok then check the hardware in isloation, i.e the routers, adaptors etc. It doesn't sound like a PC/software problem.There is a possibility you're simply overloading the system, but that depends on how many different internets, phone lines and Sky TV connections you're running at the same time. But generally that shouldn't be a problem, that just tends to slow things down rather than cut the signal suddenly.
The Arma 2 Demo is due for release tomorrow afternoon (25th), 2pm-ish GMT, according to the BI forums.
Though i wouldn't hold your breath, this is the third time they've given a release date and not delivered. Maybe they'll honour it this time ?
It's a 2gb download !! for a demo !!, and apparently you'll need a computer powered by NASA to be able to play it at full tilt. But the general census is it's a whole chunk better than Arma 1...which is not saying much really...
Though i wouldn't hold your breath, this is the third time they've given a release date and not delivered. Maybe they'll honour it this time ?
It's a 2gb download !! for a demo !!, and apparently you'll need a computer powered by NASA to be able to play it at full tilt. But the general census is it's a whole chunk better than Arma 1...which is not saying much really...
They'll make the announcement tomorrow !
Come on lads, we've still got 24hrs to get them to change their minds...anyone got Luca di Montezemolo's phone number ? Alan ?
403 Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /graphics/real-house-prices.JPG on this server.
403 ?? my internets are acting really weird at the mo
Interesting direction for this topic to take, considering Bernie's house has been on the market for over a year now.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/pro ... 1462&minPrice=3000000
errr hang on, why's that not working ??
http://media.rightmove.co.uk/3 ... GUC050094_DOC_00_0009.pdf
or
http://www.savills.co.uk/resid ... 17/3691556_0_Brochure.pdf
They work, for some reason, but the other link doesn't, i know not why ?
I'd be fascinated to know how much Bernie bought it for, and how much he's spent on it over the years.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/pro ... 1462&minPrice=3000000
errr hang on, why's that not working ??
http://media.rightmove.co.uk/3 ... GUC050094_DOC_00_0009.pdf
or
http://www.savills.co.uk/resid ... 17/3691556_0_Brochure.pdf
They work, for some reason, but the other link doesn't, i know not why ?
I'd be fascinated to know how much Bernie bought it for, and how much he's spent on it over the years.
Last edited by Bob Smith, .
Reason : added url tags
Yeah, i guess we will have to wait till the details come out. But, if Bernie's still involved, which it appears he is, then all the existing contracts with tracks, sponsors, governments etc will remain. So that means Donny as No 1 choice with Silverstone as back-up for 2010.
And seeing as most of the profits Bernie has been making from F1 have being going straight to that consortium of b-ankers that bought into the sport a few years back, i can't see them giving up their cut. They ran up some monumental debts in the process, so, we can only expect things to carry on as they have been. More visits to souless tracks with no history and no fan base, high ticket prices etc etc. And places like Canada, USA, France etc who can't afford or arn't prepared to meet Bernie's prices being left by the wayside.
It's good that Maxies going, but, even though i actually quite like Bernie the bloke. I think it would have been best for the sport as a whole if Benie took a bow and left the stage aswell.
But time will tell, lets see those details first before we sound the final death knell of F1 as we knew it.
And seeing as most of the profits Bernie has been making from F1 have being going straight to that consortium of b-ankers that bought into the sport a few years back, i can't see them giving up their cut. They ran up some monumental debts in the process, so, we can only expect things to carry on as they have been. More visits to souless tracks with no history and no fan base, high ticket prices etc etc. And places like Canada, USA, France etc who can't afford or arn't prepared to meet Bernie's prices being left by the wayside.
It's good that Maxies going, but, even though i actually quite like Bernie the bloke. I think it would have been best for the sport as a whole if Benie took a bow and left the stage aswell.
But time will tell, lets see those details first before we sound the final death knell of F1 as we knew it.
Wow, two whole pages and no one has played this yet http://www.dailymotion.com/vid ... -america-im-so-ronery_fun
Hmmm, have to admit i'm a little saddened by this. Was really excited at the prospect of the FOTA breakaway championship. Now it seems as though it's gonna be the same old same old, with a few tweaks here and there.
Cest la vie
I've only had a cursory glance at the site you linked to, but, if you're relying on that list of secular sources to ratify the existence of Jesus Christ, i'd suggest you don't totally rely on the info on that site. I have a feeling it may omit quite a lot of information on those individuals in question that they probably don't want you to know. Please don't forget that believers do tend to be a tad biased on these matters. I also urge you to check out a chap named Philo of Alexandria. Infact, you MUST check out this guy. You may be in for one heck of an eye opener, if you investigate with a completely open mind that is.
But if you want to leave this stuff till a later date, then i don't mind.
Now....
Isaiah 7:14. Yeah, that's a much touted explanation. There are others, but that one tends to be the most prevalent.
Unfortunately, there are one or two issues which are worth mentioning.
Firstly, we should query the issue of Isaiah using the name E(i)mmanuel in his prophecy. Why didn't he simply use the meaning of the name (as you right say "God is with us"). In many other prophecies (eg Isaiah 9:6) he, and the other prophets always use the meaning of the name, never the actual name itself. i.e "and he shall be called the Prince of Peace", counsellor, the Lamb of God, or even Wonderful (which is actually translated as "Pele" believe it or not
) To my mind, if Isaiah is using the real name and not it's meaning, then that signifys something different, something special. Agreed ?
So, If Isaiah is specifically prophesying (sp?) "They shall call him Emmanuel" (and not its meaning), then we should, quite rationally expect them to call him Emmanuel ?. If Matthew goes on to say the angel told Mary to call the child Jesus, we would rationally expect her to call him Jesus, and not it's meaning "God Delivers/Saves". Yeah ? Do you see the confusion ?
So where in the New Testament does anyone call him Emmanuel ? conversely, where does anyone call him "Jesus God is with us" ?. Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Messiah, yes, but not once is he called Jesus Emmanuel or Jesus God is with us ?
So was Isaiahs prophecy wrong ? Or is it too easy to say, just coz it's not mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean to say it never happened ? Perhaps, but this is the Bible we're talking about here. Its not a book that leaves prophecies unfulfilled unless they havn't actually been fulfilled yet. The Bible is a highly complex literary piece of work that interweaves its way through centuries of miraculous events, times and people, cross-referencing everything with everything else. It always attempts to dot the i's and cross the t's. Yet, we appear to have drawn a blank with this one....Not conclusive i know, but, it should get your head scatching...?
So, what else is wrong with that passage....quite a lot actually, and it's a biggy
Lets not forget Matthew was the only New Testament author to make this connection between Isaiah 7:14 and the birth of Jesus. The others didn't think it was worth a mention. And perhaps they were right to do so...
As with most scriptures, it's very very dangerous to take them in isolation. You always need to look at them in context (otherwise a devious mind could get any scripture to say anything he wanted).
So lets look at it in context, lets start at Isaiah 7:10. (i'm not going to quote scripture here, you can go find it yourself) What we find is that God was speaking to Ahaz, and Isaiah was there as the go-between. Ahaz was in a spot of bother. He was a King who's land was about to be invaded by two of his fiercest enemies. He was reluctant to ask for help from God, but God gave him a sign anyway. And, as you guessed it, that sign came in the form of a prophecy stating HE would send a special person bringing about deliverence and safety to his people, i.e 7:14. Ahhh hang on though...didn't the prophecy say a virgin would give birth to a son etc etc, surely that's refering to Jesus. Well no, and no
Firstly, why would God give Ahaz a prophecy concerning his deliverence from his enemies, if it would be another 750yrs before that prophecy was fulfilled ? That's not really gonna do Ahaz or his people much good, now is it. What kind of a loving, benevolent God do that to HIS chosen people ?
Secondly, and perhaps most impotantly. There was a bit of a miss-translation going on in that there scripture. And it's quite a significant one. It happens quite a lot in both testaments of the bible with this particular word, and here is no different. The word in question, is the Hebrew word "Almah". The true definition is, young woman, girl, maiden, and not (as in Isaiah 7:14) a virgin. So that should shine a whole different light on Matt 1:20-23
What we are saying here is, it would appear Isaiah 7:14 has nothing to do with the coming of Jesus whatsoever. And was a specific prophecy for a specific person at a specific time. How do we know this ? Because this prophecy was fulfilled....take a look at 2 Kings 16:9. (i'm not going into it here, it would take all day, but check out that and the other scriptures in the chapter, and the picture should become clearer.)
So, you may ask, why did Matthew make this connection between Jesus and Isaiah 7:14, when non of the other Gospel writers mentioned it ? Why did Matthew use a prophecy that wasn't quite kosher ? To give Jesus credibility ?, to fool the stupid, lazy and gullible ?
Thing is, it's not the only time he did this. Take a look at Matt 2:22: being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee. 23: And he (Joseph, Mary, and the lil baby Jesus) came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Ok, so one of the prophets said the Messiah would be a Nazarene. Right, so er, which prophet was that then ? Where in the Bible can we find this prophecy ? Go take a look yourself, coz i cant find it ! I've looked and looked and looked, but it just ain't there. No prophet, no prophecy, not even a mention of a Nazarene anywhere in the Old Testament. So where the hell is Matthew getting this stuff from ? And again why is he using this non existant, or non applicable prophecy to give credence to his Messiah ? And again, why is he the only New Testament author making this connection between Jesus and these ancient prophesies ?
The only thing i can suggest is, Matthew read all the prophecies saying God would send a Nazirite to deliver this person, or that bunch of people or whatever. There's quite a few of those prophecies in the Old Testament. Problem with that though, is, a Nazirite and a Nazarene, are two completely different things. A Nazirite is someone who has made a specific vow to God and to follow certain rules and regulations as laid down in the book of Numbers. A Nazarene is someone from Nazareth (and i'm not even going to get into whether Nazareth actually existed at that time in hostory or not, that a whole different argument).
So, if you're still with me after all that. Should we be questioning Matthews credibility as a purveyor of truth and all things holy. Or should we ask, "is he trying to pull a bit of a fast one here" ? That's for you, the reader to decide.
All i've done is brought to light some of the facts relating to this particular situation. I havn't made them up. They're all there for you got go check yourself. And please do, don't just take my word for it. If you really are a seeker of the truth then you'll have no issues with checking all this stuff out for yourself. But, if you'd prefer to simply dismiss it all without checking, and declare that i'm doing the devils work, then so be it, i don't care tbh.
One of the biggest problems with the Bible is'nt actually the Bible itself. It's the people in positions of power and authority who read it, then decide for us, how we are gonna interpret it, what we are gonna believe and how we should live our lives by it. For a dictator, religion is the golden goose that lays golden eggs, it's all his birthdays and all christmases rolled into one, it's the answer to all his most wildest dreams. To a dictator, whether large or small, global or local, political or social, religion is quite literally, a gift from God...
So is religion a good or a bad thing. It's great....as long as you don't believe in it.....
Sorry, written much more than intended, and it's now very very late, so i can't be bothered to check spelling or grammar.Forgive me...
Last edited by Mazz4200, .
nice !Take a closer look gents.
I wonder if any other teams on the grid this weekend have added....aerodynamics
Yeah, i actually think he stands a better chance than that tbh.
Rosberg will be poached by one of the FOTA teams,
Nakajima will crash,
and Sutil will break down.
So that only leaves the new teams and Fisi as plausible competition.
The Americans won't be able to build a car that turns right,
and the Spanish will build a car that inexplicably pulls into the pits and switches itself off for a couple of hours every lunchtime.
So that only leaves a bunch of turnip farmers from Norfolk. And nothing good has ever come out of Norfolk, ever...
I think he's squids in
@Tristan, if you're looking for for an entry form, i recon Maxie's probably got a load of em stuffed in his back pocket right now. No doubt he'll be handing them out to the crowds this coming weekend.
If you need money....you could always give your local MP a call, nudge nudge, wink wink, "say no-mor-ah"
.[edit] Oh, and another thing Mr "so called" ShottyGlass. For f**ks sake do me a favour, change your effing sig. It's not big, it's not clever and it's not funny. Be a sport !
Last edited by Mazz4200, .
No no, i think you should do the exact opposite. You should put in an entry form.
I think you'd easily be on pace with Fisi in his Force India !
It's the James Bond thing....all the chicks dig James Bond....
Guess you could plead a case for Bentley for it's racing history, oppulence and engineering prowess. And even the Bond link too, he drove one in the original books !
And surely you can't forget about Mercedes Benz.....and errr, Inspector Morse had one....
Best car in the world ? my money would go on Rolls Royce tbh, at least in recent years anyway.
[edit] Good god, 3 posts in the time it took me to write that.....thats embarrassing
Guess you could plead a case for Bentley for it's racing history, oppulence and engineering prowess. And even the Bond link too, he drove one in the original books !
And surely you can't forget about Mercedes Benz.....and errr, Inspector Morse had one....
Best car in the world ? my money would go on Rolls Royce tbh, at least in recent years anyway.
[edit] Good god, 3 posts in the time it took me to write that.....thats embarrassing
Aston Martins motorsport history bigger than Ferrari ? you being serious ?
In the two years they entered F1 they amassed a grand total of zero points. And their participation in other forms, most notably GT series and Le Mans has been, at best, sporadic.
What i really think you mean is, you've got a bit of nepatism mixed in with a James Bond stylie daydream wishful thinking-ism. So you're a fan of the romanticism of the marque and all it stands for in your own mind, moreso than it's racing pedigree ?
Last edited by Mazz4200, .
Reason : grammah !
The Latin translation of Jesus is Iesus
The Greek translation of Jesus is Joshua
The Hebrew translation of Jesus is Yeshua
So what ? whats in a name ? There have been millions of little baby boys given those names over the centuries. And it still doesn't answer ColeusRattus's question.
You would have thought if just one of those names grew up to be "The Messiah", it would have raised an eyebrow or two in the secular world at the time. Yet not one single Roman historian or administrative clerk made any mention of him.
And, if you really wanna go down the name of Jesus route. Lets not forget Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."
If you really know your Bible, you'll know just how important the prophetic book of Isaiah is to the foundation on which the whole of christianity stands.
Matthew understood, which is why he copied that verse straight into his own Gospel. (Obviously he had to insert 1:21 in there beforehand, just incase anyone doubted the divinity of Jesus) Granted, it may have lead to some confusion having two different names for the messiah, but, what the hell, that's what faith is for, isn't it....
And i'm not sure why you brought YHWH into it. That's simply one of the many Hebrew names for God.
Has to be Lotus.
They won 7 World Constructors Championships, only one less than Mclaren.
They won 7 World Constructors Championships, only one less than Mclaren.
Ahhh sorry, i didn't realise it was UK only (even though it says it on the page, lol)
The clip is the in-car footage from Trullis car as he was following and overtaking Hamilton, he then slows right down a little later. I've just had a quick look for a Youtube version, but no joy i'm afraid. I'll have to have another look later in the day and get back to you. (It's nothing startling tbh, just, if we begin to pick apart Trulli's version of events in the same manner we're doing with Hamilton, then we can (if we're being objective) question how much effort did he truly (pun intended) put into avoiding overtaking him.
But, as i said previously, i'm only splitting hairs, not trying to start another arguement. What Mcamilton did was wrong and has rightly been punished for it. But this witch hunting attitude is becoming a tad irksome, and it always seems to be magnified x10 when it's the silver cars/drivers in the wrong. If this had been a Schumacher or Senna, then it would have probably been over and done with within a few hours. But with Hamilton, it just goes on and on and on....anyway, qualifying in a few mins.
@Shotglass, i'm starting to worry about you tbh. Since Kev left, you appear to be getting your German sense of humour back...
Oh yes Shotglass, very funny, especially when taken out of context. Makes me look a bit of a spanner.
And to think, i was gonna complement you on the "Smoking Man" insinuation.
And to think, i was gonna complement you on the "Smoking Man" insinuation.
Trulli said he had to pass Hamilton because "he was way more slow than the pace car" http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/h ... t/formula_one/7979304.stm what pace car ?
Trulli also stated that he tried to do everything he could to avoid passing Hamilton....really ? Does it look like he's doing everything he can to avoid passing him ? [edit] Also, why didn't Trulli let Hamilton pass him again when he realised he may have overtaken him illegally ? there was still 3 laps of the race left, after all.
I'm splitting hairs i know, but, one could argue a case against Trulli being 'economical with the truth' on those statements when viewing the in-car footage.
As far as i see it, Mclaren took a dive in the box and hoped to get a penalty kick out of it, but failed, and have been punished for it (rightly so). It was wrong of them to 'lie', but, this is a professional sport, you'd have to be really nieve to believe this kind of stuff has never happened before, especially in F1, and even more of a fool to believe it won't happen again. But will we ever hear of future wrong-doings if it's not Mclaren doing the wrong-doing....ermmm
Edit @Amp88, see Sam's post 798 for the answer
Last edited by Mazz4200, .
Didn't Skoda make some sort of sportscar back in the day with a tiny pathetic little engine in it ? Don't remember it's name though ?
Bah, what a bunch of wimps. You should have tried it a few years back before all the tyre physics were changed (patch S i think ?). You could barely drive it in a straight line.
The RAC is probably the most challenging car to drive in LFS, but for that very reason it's all the more satisfying when you do hook it up. Sudden snap oversteer is always lurking there to catch the unweary, but, it's as sweet as a nut when you understand it's handling characteristics, although it can be very frustrating too. But a good setup is vital for this car, probably moreso than any other in the game.
Basically, the RAC is a real mans car
The RAC is probably the most challenging car to drive in LFS, but for that very reason it's all the more satisfying when you do hook it up. Sudden snap oversteer is always lurking there to catch the unweary, but, it's as sweet as a nut when you understand it's handling characteristics, although it can be very frustrating too. But a good setup is vital for this car, probably moreso than any other in the game.
Basically, the RAC is a real mans car
My fiver goes on Spanky
I'll rephrase that..
I think it was Spankmeyer.
I'll rephrase that..
I think it was Spankmeyer.
Bloody hell Shotty, that took nearly 5 months, what you do, give birth to it ?
Almost a hint of irony there, what with your sig and all.
Oh, and congrats. Funky little motor you got there
Almost a hint of irony there, what with your sig and all.
Oh, and congrats. Funky little motor you got there
You've got to patch it up to at least 1.14 dude, and you must get ACE mod too (probably the best thing thats happenend to Arma since it was released)
Yeah, of course he is. He'll probably wait until all the fuss has died down, then slink back in here and post one of his classic one liners, then everything can return to normal.
Obviously we're all contractually obligated to take the piss out of him for at least a fortnight or so. So, lets start now...
Kev, you're a big daft cock
But we love you all the same, in, in a purely manly, non homosexual kind of way...Grrrrr
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG