I agree with Bob that Top Gear's not the car review programme it used to be.. but it is entertaining, and because it's entertaining it's commercially viable and a product capable of generating massive revenue with international sales - which it has done, healthily, since the format changed. Top Gear (contrary to Alan's belief) is not a COST to the tax payer, it is a huge revenue generator and pays for a lot of other exceptionally good and educational, but less commercially viable, programming.
Fifth Gear could have, and should have, also moved with the times. The problem with Fifth Gear is that they kept EXACTLY the same format that Top Gear was using in the early 80s. You can't do that when your audience changes like it does, and has. Fifth Gear stagnated. It CHOSE to play 2nd fiddle - everything about it said "Top Gear changed, SO we won't".
You can be proactive to succeed, or reactive to recover, but if you remain INactive then you'll fail, and I'm afraid to say Fifth Gear went with the latter and got what it deserved.
Fifth Gear could have, and should have, also moved with the times. The problem with Fifth Gear is that they kept EXACTLY the same format that Top Gear was using in the early 80s. You can't do that when your audience changes like it does, and has. Fifth Gear stagnated. It CHOSE to play 2nd fiddle - everything about it said "Top Gear changed, SO we won't".
You can be proactive to succeed, or reactive to recover, but if you remain INactive then you'll fail, and I'm afraid to say Fifth Gear went with the latter and got what it deserved.
Though I strongly recommend watching the film on its own merits, here's the clip from the film... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaIUdIOB9j8
<-- still wondering (and a little concerned about) what constitutes a good website fingering! 
Oh sorry, peterules. I didn't realise the topic was forbidden. When did that happen, and exactly why? For reference material, read the rest of this thread.
I wouldn't describe it as a photographic technique. It's a graphic technique.
I've only seen it used once effectively, in the film Schindler's List. It was emotive and it worked, but for me that was its once-only usage, never to be repeated.
I've only seen it used once effectively, in the film Schindler's List. It was emotive and it worked, but for me that was its once-only usage, never to be repeated.
The best alternative to the CTRA's reporting system that I've seen was Gentlefoot's league's incident peer review system. Though it worked well on a league level, it would take some really smart algorithm development in order to ensure that peer reviews in a public server system were fair. There's nothing (and I do mean nothing) worse than LFS's "press 1 to.." system, if you're seeking to deploy a fair peer assessment mechanism. Anything that introduces that potential, in any measure, is never going to achieve its objective of fair moderation.
Automatic - as in InSim-based - incident moderation simply doesn't work. I find nothing more odious than iRacing's incident system, and anything that punishes both the wrecker and the wreckee is worse than no moderation at all. As far as I can tell, there's simply not enough information in the InSim packet data to give better than a poorly educated guess. It's not an option, unless you provide for a manually handled appeals procedure and if you're going to go for one of those, you might as well go for a manual reporting system. At least with manual moderation you maintain the concept of "due process", innocent until proven guilty etc. - fundamental to anything purporting to be judicial.
Automatic - as in InSim-based - incident moderation simply doesn't work. I find nothing more odious than iRacing's incident system, and anything that punishes both the wrecker and the wreckee is worse than no moderation at all. As far as I can tell, there's simply not enough information in the InSim packet data to give better than a poorly educated guess. It's not an option, unless you provide for a manually handled appeals procedure and if you're going to go for one of those, you might as well go for a manual reporting system. At least with manual moderation you maintain the concept of "due process", innocent until proven guilty etc. - fundamental to anything purporting to be judicial.
It's gone. Respect thread title authoritah.
The space bottom left became configurable and dynamic, and we used it on the UF-BR server to acknowledge the UF Baby R by Concept Racing. For me, though, the billboards were the most "sellable". Anything else felt no more classy than a popup window - always an option, never very appealing.
QFT!
The only time we properly examined the possibility of raising income within the CTRA was when it became clear we needed to address the aforementioned problem with sourcing part-time, paid admins.
Just to clarify from my point of view, it's entirely up to Scavier whether in-game advertising (IGA) is something they're willing to allow servers control over. LFS is their baby and I support their philosophy 100%. I always have. For me, though, if CTRA was ever to turn a profit (LOL!) to pay its admin, it would have been through corporate IGA. While I did talk to Scawen about it, it was clear that this wasn't a viable revenue path. I never wanted to charge anything for participation and the LFS community has repeatedly made it abundantly clear that it would never have embraced that mechanism either.
Although the CTRA's website and drivers' portal accumulated really, really impressive page impression stats, I never wanted to "pollute" it with ad slots. That's why the only banners on the raceauthority.com site were to LFS team websites. Ultimately, it became clear that the gap between what we wanted to deliver and what we could reasonably achieve became too broad to clear. Such is life
Although the CTRA's website and drivers' portal accumulated really, really impressive page impression stats, I never wanted to "pollute" it with ad slots. That's why the only banners on the raceauthority.com site were to LFS team websites. Ultimately, it became clear that the gap between what we wanted to deliver and what we could reasonably achieve became too broad to clear. Such is life
I can't remember what I said in the last thread, so I could be repeating myself..
There are aspects of the CTRA that were flawed from the beginning. The absence of a properly formed end-objective was its most fundamental flaw and this became more and more obvious as time passed, as friends achieved more and more disparate licenses. We introduced player monthly stats towards the end, using a GP Points system and if we'd had time to further the development, this would have countered many of the inherent problems of the licensing systems and career paths.
The CTRA was never intended (or I never intended it to be) a one-stop LFS shop. It was intended to be A place, not THE ONLY place to race on LFS. Unfortunately (for racing), most of the other capable InSim developers focused on Cruise applications rather than racing. Nothing we did with the CTRA was beyond the capabilities of others, but it's not really CTRA's fault that nobody took up the chalice at the time.
You've identified a core problem with ALL admined servers, and one that the CTRA struggled to address. Our admin team, at the start, was perfect. All admins were brilliantly impartial, meticulous with their attention to detail, and brilliant marshals. But outside of LFS there is life and you can't hit pause on that while you're processing reports. We needed admin turnover, and that was impossible to achieve.
Attracting new admins to handle the reports requires you to find people that you trust implicitly to be impartial in judging on-track incidents. That is far harder than people might realise. When you find someone who is genuinely impartial, part of the reason for their impartiality is that they're NOT that engrossed in LFS. Getting an admin to VOLUNTARILY go through the (often) mundane process of examining replays, assessing intent and apportioning blame when, in truth, they don't actually CARE that much about LFS is.. well, it's impossible. Unless you're paying them, of course. And to pay them, you have to have a system that's funded. Bottom line, LFSers don't like paying for things and though there were quite a few offers of cash and even a couple of offers to PAY CTRA staff, there were concerns within UKCT that the cost to CTRA's integrity would have been too much.
Geez, guys, come on. There's no need for this back/forth. Let's move on, please.
I'm with you, Menantoll. Unless a thread is "poisonous" in some way, I don't see the need to close it. Becky said it best, it's a community forum not a Wiki.
The question about the CTRA is posed and answered in the first couple of posts. The discussion about WebGL and web programming, meanwhile, is interesting to me and as with the last thread, I imagine some are seeing the opportunity to review their CTRA stats and reminisce a little. Nobody is being hurt, no harm is being done
The question about the CTRA is posed and answered in the first couple of posts. The discussion about WebGL and web programming, meanwhile, is interesting to me and as with the last thread, I imagine some are seeing the opportunity to review their CTRA stats and reminisce a little. Nobody is being hurt, no harm is being done
There's a difference between calling someone stupid and pointing out that the things they say are stupid. One is an insult and the other is an observation or discussion point.
I've noticed that it's quite a popular pastime around here, to take someone's observation and treat it as if they've been deliberately insulted by it. flymike pulled the same thing on me a page ago, suggesting that I was comparing him directly with the KKK. Naturally, I'm not left with much sympathy for this behaviour at this point.
If you don't want people to think you're a crap mathematician, don't argue that pi would be better if it was rounded down to 3. And if you DO argue it, don't act all insulted if someone suggests that you're crap at math.
Only 56% of Americans know that "public option" is a contextual term relating to healthcare. That's shocking, IMO, considering the significance and ramifications of the bill that the Senate Finance Committee passed this week.
We have more than our fair share of stupid brits. We've had over half a century of lunatic political rule from them, in my opinion.
I've noticed that it's quite a popular pastime around here, to take someone's observation and treat it as if they've been deliberately insulted by it. flymike pulled the same thing on me a page ago, suggesting that I was comparing him directly with the KKK. Naturally, I'm not left with much sympathy for this behaviour at this point.
If you don't want people to think you're a crap mathematician, don't argue that pi would be better if it was rounded down to 3. And if you DO argue it, don't act all insulted if someone suggests that you're crap at math.
Only 56% of Americans know that "public option" is a contextual term relating to healthcare. That's shocking, IMO, considering the significance and ramifications of the bill that the Senate Finance Committee passed this week.
We have more than our fair share of stupid brits. We've had over half a century of lunatic political rule from them, in my opinion.
The physics and graphics engines are common across all licence levels, from Demo to (eventually) S3.
S3 is not going to be a mandatory upgrade. If you don't think it's worth it for 1 track and 1 car (as far as we know, all that S3 brings extra to the table), then I really think you shouldn't buy it. Nobody should make a purchase they think they may regret and I'll fight your corner for you if you decide not to upgrade, and then cop any crap for that decision.
[edit] sorry geeman1, dunno why your post didn't show up before.
Two separate issues - repatenting and research/innovation. The 14% refers to creative development (new drug innovation). Patent protection is a separate issue, but addressed in simple terms in the same breath. Perhaps the article should have spent more time separating these two aspects of the dirty drug companies' business of market manipulation.
My understanding is that it's 14% of the cost of bringing a drug to market, and 100% of the resulting profits.
I've merged all of your threads into one because they're all the same thing, posted all over this forum.
If you continue to create new threads on the same topic, you will begin to receive infractions for forum disruption.
If you continue to create new threads on the same topic, you will begin to receive infractions for forum disruption.
Feelin' the need to point out something, here. 85% of drug research is paid for by taxpayers through research grants at universities. Drug companies turn up at the END of the story, make up the remaining 15% (almost ALL on marketing and drug production) on GUARANTEED-effective drugs, and then make billions in profit. NO return to the taxpayer, only COST.
The drug companies pay NOTHING for early research, except a few (and I mean a VERY few) token scholarships - and those come with employment pre-requisites.
[edit] http://www.independent.co.uk/o ... pany-profits-1767257.html
That says they pay 14%. Worse still.
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : ...
Why didn't you tell us that you're a comedian??
20% oppose a public option. Your president was elected on the promise of healthcare reform. I keep hearing your GOP claiming all those people opposing reform, but if you're referring to the town hall morons or listening to Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin, you seriously need to get off Faux News. Is this lady related? Gotta love Barney Frank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8
You jest. Bush increased federal expenditure by 55% (29% constant/adjusted) while US GDP grew just 17.3%. Federal expenditure exploded under the Bush administration.
I'll touch on a few of these points.
1. No waiting longer than 2 weeks for any operation such as hip replacement or diagnostic test such as an MRI or xray (Average wait time for a hip replacement in Canada is 10 weeks)
- Hip replacement isn't a sudden condition. Under the current system, people wait far longer than they would need under the reformed system because a) they can't afford the excess under PPO; b) any complications could potentially result in insurance issues relating to pre-existing conditions
2. Every household pays a flat tax to be in the program.
- A flat tax burdens the poor and achieves nothing. A proportional income-based tax is rational.
3. There is an option to opt out of the program entirely.
- That's proposed. However, I think that's an error. It should be mandatory, thus spreading the burden more broadly and resulting in lower net costs to all.
4. Non-citizens will pay full price for treatment, or have their government cover the cost.
- Permanent residents pay taxes like everyone else. They should have equal entitlement.
5. All government healthcare services are united under one single authority.
- Agreed. End the cartels and make the system equal and fair. That's the point.
6. Patients can choose their doctor (thereby rewarding better doctors with more money)
- I chose my doctor. My doctor will even make a house call if I'm too sick to get to him. I couldn't get my doc in the US to come see me, except when she came over for dinner.
7. The tax increase is not in the form of a fuel or road use tax.
- The tax increase should be a portion of your federal income tax.
8. patients will not have to wait longer than 3 hours in an emergency room.
- That'd be nice. The last time I was in the Lake Forest Hospital emergency room, I was there 8 hours. The time before that, 6 hours. The time before that I was there 5 hours.
The last time I hit the emergency room in the UK, I was met at the door by a nurse. I spent about 5 minutes in triage and I didn't spend a single moment trying to find an insurance card or filling out insurance forms.
You're wrong. I've seen it. This country rocks.
That's the mean streak I was talking about. It's quite dominant in the US, while it's far less prevalent here. People, here, who let it be known that they're unwilling or unhappy to contribute to a system that gives equal treatment to the poor and needy are looked on as bad or worse than you would look on someone proclaiming the virtues of the KKK. Like scum, basically.
It strikes me that much of the fear about healthcare reform might actually in fact come down to acknowledgement of a corrupt Washington. But I don't see much happening at grass roots level to expose the lobby groups and bring them down. It's like you accept it, like it's okay or something.
It strikes me that much of the fear about healthcare reform might actually in fact come down to acknowledgement of a corrupt Washington. But I don't see much happening at grass roots level to expose the lobby groups and bring them down. It's like you accept it, like it's okay or something.
It's no wonder less than 20% of Americans surveyed today will admit to being Republican.
On the topic of Obama, the award is deserved. For the last 3 years that I know of, he's been continually campaigning for world peace and he's achieved the presidency on that ticket too.
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is a vote of confidence, but given the difference he's made so far (it's dramatic, but yanks probably can't see it yet) and his clear determination to improve America's standing internationally as well as positively influencing other international relations through diplomacy (makes a nice change from warmongering and "peacemaking"), this award is affirmation to Obama that WE (the world) recognise his intentions and appreciate his efforts. It's support and it's encouragement.
And to those Republicans that oppose Obama's prize; tough! It's NOT your decision. Suck it up.
On the topic of Obama, the award is deserved. For the last 3 years that I know of, he's been continually campaigning for world peace and he's achieved the presidency on that ticket too.
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is a vote of confidence, but given the difference he's made so far (it's dramatic, but yanks probably can't see it yet) and his clear determination to improve America's standing internationally as well as positively influencing other international relations through diplomacy (makes a nice change from warmongering and "peacemaking"), this award is affirmation to Obama that WE (the world) recognise his intentions and appreciate his efforts. It's support and it's encouragement.
And to those Republicans that oppose Obama's prize; tough! It's NOT your decision. Suck it up.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG