It's arguments like this that dilute the anti-Big Brother argument. Your local constabulary's traffic enforcement has sweet f.a. to do with big government's big plans for big national databases. The police cameras are most likely part of the ANPR network, and the police cars are waiting there until a suspicious car goes past. No tax, no insurance, associated with wanted criminal/bail jumper, etc etc. Either way I drive from my place, I'll usually end up going past a set of permanent ANPR cameras, but it doesn't bother me, because I know that it reads my plate, looks it up against a table of "wanted" registrations, finds no match, then moves onto the next one.
The problem lies not with a couple of traffic cops waiting for an illegal driver to go past, the problems arise when the govt starts to legitimise the process of integrating the DVLA database with the NHS's database, and the PNC, and the Inland Revenue, and so on. All these organisations have vast amounts of data on us, quite legitimately - they need it to do their job.
It just needs to stay separate, that's all. Some half-witted PCSO rent-a-cop has no right to access my NHS details, and some civil servant at the DVLA doesn't need to know anything about how much tax I've paid.
As much as I agree about the cocks transferring to Audis, don't go thinking that they've forgotten about BMWs just yet. At the moment it's a fairly even split, which just means there's even more cars to refuse to let out at junctions, and to generally aggravate in a subtle way wherever possible by positioning your car and adjusting your speed to make life awkward for them.
And of course, there's the cocks in the Range Rovers. Don't get me started on them. It's annoying, because it's such a damn good car, but I can't actually remember the last time I saw one being driven in a manner that didn't make me shout "TWAT" or "COCK" at the windscreen.
That was my first thought, then I realised it was Bernie we were talking about, so track quality isn't on the radar.
Money is, though. Lots and lots of it.
Who cares about atmosphere?
Who cares about heritage?
Who cares about a great track to race on?
Who cares about challenging the drivers and teams??
Bernie doesn't. Bernie cares about money. Every decision he makes has money at the heart of it. Often he uses the reason that the facilities aren't up to scratch for removing a GP. Well the facilities were good enough last year for the teams - and I can't imagine many circuits have reduced the size or quantity of pit garages, or sold off half the paddock to Tesco. Usually it's due to a lucrative new GP in some newly rich country, with a lovely Tilke-designed circuit somewhere amongst all the tarmac run-off, bankrolled by a government, whilst the governments of "traditional" GPs such as Britain, France (and now Canada) quite rightly refuse to put state, taxpayers money into the pockets of that greedy, evil little poison dwarf.
Still, he's getting on a bit isn't he? Can't be long now.
As much as I'm vastly opposed to any official scheme to access our communications, the government has always been able to do so. Even without RIPA, or whatever other acts have been passed to allow it, because previously it used to be illegal for the government to spy and eavesdrop on it's own citizens. Not that the government is too concerned by petty things such as legality, but as a technicality they just got Menwith Hill to do it instead (as it's run by the NSA).
The concerning thing is why they feel the need to legitimise it after all these years. In the past, GCHQ intercepted pretty much everything coming out of Northern Ireland and pumped it through what is called the "echelon" system for recognising keywords and trends. Generally, it seemed to work for combatting terrorism.
Which just makes me think that if they're now putting a public face on all this communications interception, then there's something bigger and nastier around the corner that we don't yet know about.
The concerning thing is why they feel the need to legitimise it after all these years. In the past, GCHQ intercepted pretty much everything coming out of Northern Ireland and pumped it through what is called the "echelon" system for recognising keywords and trends. Generally, it seemed to work for combatting terrorism.
Which just makes me think that if they're now putting a public face on all this communications interception, then there's something bigger and nastier around the corner that we don't yet know about.
Well just send it to Sam, he knows how to fix them, he was shown by his dad's brother's second cousin who has an IT degree (in case you didn't know, yes, IT courses now include repairing games consoles) and made him sign the Official Secrets Act about how to do it.
If you're really lucky, he'll respray your XBox into a lovely Burberry scheme, with some Rockport rubber feet, and maybe fit a two-foot high chin spoiler.
Maybe so (I have mixed views on it personally), but for Massa to start moaning about it solely allowing Alonso to win is akin to missing the point at the world sewing championships. Another significant contributory factor that allowed Alonso to dominate was the absence of red cars at the front, courtesy of Massa's pit crew having a collective blonde moment and deciding it would be funny to let Massa use his fuel hose to play skittles with the pit crew. I think he should direct his vitriol towards his own team, as from his comments you'd think the safety car had come in ahead of the Ferraris, and parked in their pit box with Mayländer sitting there grinning and giving them the finger.
Although come to think of it, it'd be bloody hilarious if he did.
Yes, let's all abandon routers. They're clearly more trouble than they're worth. :rolleyes:
Erm, Rosberg had to take a 10-second stop-go and still finished second. Yes he was lucky with the timing of the penalty decision (thanks to the Trulli-Train), but he had good pace and kept it quick, consistent, pointing the right way and out of the barriers, which is more than can be said for several other drivers.
Why do people talk about if the safety car hadn't happened? It did, twice, so what's the point in theorising about what would've happened had there been no SC? There's nothing to say Ferrari would have finished 1-2. They might have bungled their pitstops anyway. Or maybe Massa would've lapped everyone except Kimi. It's impossible to say, so it's an irrelevant argument.
Imho, asking which team is "strong" over the race means which team outperformed themselves over the weekend. Williams & Rosberg were "strong" as normally they're down at the back somewhere but performed beyond all expectations. Renault & Alonso were "strong" because normally they're in the midfield, but situations granted them a good opportunity and they had the pace & tactics to take the win. McLaren & Hamilton were not strong, even though they finished third, because we know how fast they can be from previous races and they were slightly underwhelming in Singapore. Ferrari were a clown team this weekend, managing to cock up a pitstop in monumental fashion and both drivers screwing up.
I thought Ford was just as much up shit creek as the other two big Americans. Mainly because Ford relied on knocking out hundreds of thousands of badly-made F-series pickups and huge SUVs with an agricultural design which cost virtually nothing to make but turned a tidy profit - sales of which have obviously plummeted as oil prices have risen.
Modern Jaguars are certainly very reliable and they always score highly in customer satisfaction surveys. However, Jaguar never made a profit for Ford, despite the investment. The irony is that when the shit hit the fan in Detroit, and Ford started offloading anything it could, Jaguar was on course to make a profit for Ford! Even more daft is that they got rid of Land Rover - they had to if they sold Jaguar, 'cos these days LR and Jag are inextricably linked with technology and engine sharing. But LR is hugely profitable and always has been, as footballers and pimps will always pay silly money for a Range Rover Sport.
It's a shame, and I'm quite partial to Ford mainly as a result of them being a generally good owner of various important British manufacturers (Aston, LR, Jag). Those companies would be in a much worse shape than they are now had Ford not taken them under it's wing.
But yeah, Ford being smaller than GM should (in theory) also mean it can adapt quicker and survive better. GM strikes me as a company that simply can't grasp that things are changing, much like record companies who can't grasp that most people want music electronically these days.
I presume you know that Saab cars are GM?
There'd better not be an LFS patch at the end of November. GTA4 is released on the PC then.
I thought there was something strange about his grid-walks lately, too. Generally unable to speak to the movers and shakers like he used to, then Bernie shoved him in front of the prime minister in Singapore, and apparently in Italy, brundlequotes.com attributes this exchange to Brundle and the poison dwarf:
Bernie: “Are you still with ITV?”
Martin: “Well, they haven’t fired me yet.”
Bernie: “Get ‘em to buy you an umbrella!”
Still, that often seems to be Bernie's and the FIA's motto: if it works, or is good, ruin it.
Well I was cheering for Nico Rosberg and Williams, as it's great to see Williams getting some success again - I'd love for them to return to the top flight of F1. Over the last few laps I was urging Hamilton to not try and be a hero, and take out Nico with a fudged pass. Glad to see also that Hamilton thought about the situation and decided six points was better than a possible none.
Glad to see Massa FINALLY get penalised for another rediculous release from the pits straight into the path of another car. The ITV commentators didn't seem to notice but as Shotglass mentioned, they quickly got the lollipop man back on duty for subsequent stops. Surely we won't see any more of that silly (and dangerous) traffic light system.
As for Massa... for me it was more proof that he's vastly over-rated. When everything is running smoothly, he's very good. But when something goes wrong, it's like he falls apart. And of course, if it had been raining then every piece of tv footage of Massa would need to be accompanied by the Sugababes' "Round Round". What exactly was Massa doing back there after the botched pitstop? His laptimes plummeted and the only other notable thing he did for the rest of the race was going backwards into the corner leading into the tunnel. As others have said, he strikes me as being a great "hot lapper" but nowhere near as much a racer as some others in the field.
I also had to laugh and cringe at the same time at the return of the Trulli-Train. Laugh because it's so funny seeing half the field stuck behind Trulli crawling round, cringe because everytime it happens, it demonstrates how stupidly hard it is to overtake in F1.
But what a brilliant race. No doubt the tree-huggers will be having a fit at such a gratuitous waste of electricity with the use of 3.2MW to light the circuit alone, but it looked spectacular. The bumpy circuit made the cars look great as they bounced and moved around over the road. You could really see the suspension moving and taking a hammering. The blue flames burbling out the exhausts, the sparks flying down the straights, the piercing eyes visible out from behind the clear visors... superb stuff.
Glad to see Massa FINALLY get penalised for another rediculous release from the pits straight into the path of another car. The ITV commentators didn't seem to notice but as Shotglass mentioned, they quickly got the lollipop man back on duty for subsequent stops. Surely we won't see any more of that silly (and dangerous) traffic light system.
As for Massa... for me it was more proof that he's vastly over-rated. When everything is running smoothly, he's very good. But when something goes wrong, it's like he falls apart. And of course, if it had been raining then every piece of tv footage of Massa would need to be accompanied by the Sugababes' "Round Round". What exactly was Massa doing back there after the botched pitstop? His laptimes plummeted and the only other notable thing he did for the rest of the race was going backwards into the corner leading into the tunnel. As others have said, he strikes me as being a great "hot lapper" but nowhere near as much a racer as some others in the field.
I also had to laugh and cringe at the same time at the return of the Trulli-Train. Laugh because it's so funny seeing half the field stuck behind Trulli crawling round, cringe because everytime it happens, it demonstrates how stupidly hard it is to overtake in F1.
But what a brilliant race. No doubt the tree-huggers will be having a fit at such a gratuitous waste of electricity with the use of 3.2MW to light the circuit alone, but it looked spectacular. The bumpy circuit made the cars look great as they bounced and moved around over the road. You could really see the suspension moving and taking a hammering. The blue flames burbling out the exhausts, the sparks flying down the straights, the piercing eyes visible out from behind the clear visors... superb stuff.
Last edited by STROBE, .
The woman in red that got hit by a car was jailed for a day... :mad:
This was on Motorway Cops last night on BBC1. First woman escapes the grasp of a Highways Agency traffic womble, and runs smack bang into the path of an HGV on the motorway. Everyone stands aghast, the second woman runs out and gets hit by a car.
Those cops have got some patience. If one of those women had pushed/hit me then danced around on the other carriageway, I'd have had the baton and pepper spray out. I can't have sympathy for their injuries when they're self-inflicted in such a way, I feel sorry for the innocent drivers that hit them.
Those cops have got some patience. If one of those women had pushed/hit me then danced around on the other carriageway, I'd have had the baton and pepper spray out. I can't have sympathy for their injuries when they're self-inflicted in such a way, I feel sorry for the innocent drivers that hit them.
I wasn't aware that putting a moderator's name in your avatar actually made you a moderator, and gave the right to start telling people what to do in an obnoxious, off-hand, condescending way.
I'll have to try that one day.
I think you'll find the word is "rhetorical".
Well at least I can do the condescending stuff.
I'll have to try that one day.
I think you'll find the word is "rhetorical".
Well at least I can do the condescending stuff.
Here's a few shots from last week in the Lake District...
A clear sky can be a rare thing in the Lakes, so here's the moon.
A famous car from the South Lakes Motor Museum.
View across Windermere.
Had to keep the little'un entertained (my nephew) so a wild animal park was also on the itinerary.
Weather was pretty rubbish for Lake District landscapes, sadly.
A clear sky can be a rare thing in the Lakes, so here's the moon.
A famous car from the South Lakes Motor Museum.
View across Windermere.
Had to keep the little'un entertained (my nephew) so a wild animal park was also on the itinerary.
Weather was pretty rubbish for Lake District landscapes, sadly.
I call upon the testimony of a journalist:
Either you're a journalist in disguise, or you forgot to provide a link/credit to wherever you copied & pasted that from.
I live just off a busy route out of town, and my road itself is used as a cut-through by cars and pedestrians.
Kev sounds like a top bloke, but unfortunately, my tolerance levels are far lower. Mainly as a result of one of the two groups that most people fall into when they're drunk.
There's "nice" drunks, who may be rolling back from the pub at 12/1/2am chatting, laughing, giggling, having a good time. This isn't a bad noise, it's the sound of people enjoying themselves and makes the place feel lively and vibrant.
Then there's the other group, which for convenience I will call "f*ckwit tossers". These are the people, more usually guys than women, who think nothing of yelling and shouting as loud as possible at 2am. It's not laughing, it's not a happy, loud conversation, it's plain yelling. Shouting. Abusive. Aggressive. Unnecessary. Then there's the f*ckwit tossers who once decided to have a half hour long playfight on the pavement right outside mine at 1am. Then there's the f*ckwit tossers who drive taxis, as they drop someone off in my street at 2am and sit there outside my place with a noisy diesel engine clattering for the next 15 minutes while they count their takings for the night.
Then there's other sorts, which for convenience I will simply label as "criminals". Like the guy who was openly stealing copper wire out the pavements while the council was half way through replacing lamp posts (although given the speed which with the area was swarming with police after I dialled 999, I'd be amazed if his bravado paid off). Or the clearly dodgy men who turn up in a white van in the middle of the night, scoping out one of the business properties over the road. Or the charming souls who take a piss against the gates of my property until I invite them f*ck off. Or the f*cking taggers that come through the street in the night, daubing walls and parked vans with their paint. Or the probable junkie that took three goes to break into a VW Toureg parked on the street with a posh dash-mounted mobile phone. I reported it a day later after it had rained heavily overnight and filled the Toureg with water, as I had a pretty good idea who it belonged to, and I was in no rush to do this particular company any favours.
All of which combined means I'm not very nice towards passers-by, and rather than use booze and cigarettes, would sooner turn to an M-16 and petrol bombs.
Kev sounds like a top bloke, but unfortunately, my tolerance levels are far lower. Mainly as a result of one of the two groups that most people fall into when they're drunk.
There's "nice" drunks, who may be rolling back from the pub at 12/1/2am chatting, laughing, giggling, having a good time. This isn't a bad noise, it's the sound of people enjoying themselves and makes the place feel lively and vibrant.
Then there's the other group, which for convenience I will call "f*ckwit tossers". These are the people, more usually guys than women, who think nothing of yelling and shouting as loud as possible at 2am. It's not laughing, it's not a happy, loud conversation, it's plain yelling. Shouting. Abusive. Aggressive. Unnecessary. Then there's the f*ckwit tossers who once decided to have a half hour long playfight on the pavement right outside mine at 1am. Then there's the f*ckwit tossers who drive taxis, as they drop someone off in my street at 2am and sit there outside my place with a noisy diesel engine clattering for the next 15 minutes while they count their takings for the night.
Then there's other sorts, which for convenience I will simply label as "criminals". Like the guy who was openly stealing copper wire out the pavements while the council was half way through replacing lamp posts (although given the speed which with the area was swarming with police after I dialled 999, I'd be amazed if his bravado paid off). Or the clearly dodgy men who turn up in a white van in the middle of the night, scoping out one of the business properties over the road. Or the charming souls who take a piss against the gates of my property until I invite them f*ck off. Or the f*cking taggers that come through the street in the night, daubing walls and parked vans with their paint. Or the probable junkie that took three goes to break into a VW Toureg parked on the street with a posh dash-mounted mobile phone. I reported it a day later after it had rained heavily overnight and filled the Toureg with water, as I had a pretty good idea who it belonged to, and I was in no rush to do this particular company any favours.
All of which combined means I'm not very nice towards passers-by, and rather than use booze and cigarettes, would sooner turn to an M-16 and petrol bombs.
Last edited by STROBE, .
Buy a better lens.
Sorry that isn't too helpful, but I have a Sigma 70-300 and although it's nice and cheap, it's not a great lens for pixel-peeping sharpness across the whole frame. As Don says, you need to be stopped down quite a bit, and I also find mine is slow to focus. So you need good light and a static or slow-moving subject. I also find mine to be low in contrast. I used to think of it as an axcellent lens, and it is good for it's price, but now that I upgraded my general zoom earlier this year, my telezoom Sigma is really showing it's weaknesses and so is now first on the list for eventual replacement, when I can afford it.
Isn't it just?
Especially considering that it's perfectly possible the OP's primary language isn't English...
Last edited by STROBE, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG