Um, not really. It was a little more than that. I've plenty other reasons for not wanting to shop at OcUK, although it's best if I don't throw accusations and libel around.
Still with appalling customer service and an owner with highly questionable morals?
Getting back to the original topic, I just noticed something in an article yesterday on the BBC news site...
:wtf:
link
As for the rest of the article and the govt plans it references, it's quite frightening just how prophetic George Orwell really was. It's also quite saddening how apathetic most people seem to be over these things. You'd think there would be talk of it everywhere, protests in every city, riots outside Parliament, over the prospect of the government logging every email, phone call, or website visit. But everyone just sits and lets it happen, not realising and not caring what it represents.
:wtf:
link
As for the rest of the article and the govt plans it references, it's quite frightening just how prophetic George Orwell really was. It's also quite saddening how apathetic most people seem to be over these things. You'd think there would be talk of it everywhere, protests in every city, riots outside Parliament, over the prospect of the government logging every email, phone call, or website visit. But everyone just sits and lets it happen, not realising and not caring what it represents.
Isn't that just F1-speak for "Bernie's asked for more money again"?
Another vote for Manfrotto here, I use an 055 Pro. One of the few tripods tall enough to look through the viewfinder without bending down or raising the central column.
Not exactly lightweight or particularly portable, though. :-/
That's a great self portrait Sam - brilliant lighting and PP.
Not exactly lightweight or particularly portable, though. :-/
That's a great self portrait Sam - brilliant lighting and PP.
It's not released until 20th, so dunno yet.
But according to S14 DRIFT and his obvious worldly years of experience from driving, you'd have rightly been doing 100mph and used your X-ray eyes to see through the corner and anticipated the slow moving vehicle. Or even better, they wouldn't be there as anything moving slowly has no right to be in your way.
The licences refer to the amount of content you are entitled to use. So an S1 licence can still be used today, but only with certain cars. When S3 is released, us S2 users have to pay the difference in order to access the S3-level content. A demo user would have to pay the full amount from scratch.
However all users can use the latest build of LFS - which is currently 0.5Z. So let's suppose S3 comes along in five years time and (strictly hypothetically!
) has dynamic weather and lighting, fully deformable cars, LMP cars and a rally pack. An S1 or S2 user would still benefit from the dynamic weather, lighting and deformable cars as they are part of the build, but wouldn't have access to the LMP and rally cars as they are part of the content.Sorry to say but that's not HDR, that's a painting. 
My advice is to forget about HDR for now. I think the scene you took would probably look far better without the HDR processing, assuming it's a sunny and well lit scene. It's quite a nice scene actually, and not a bad photo - quite nice too.
But your processing of it... ugh. 
My advice is to forget about HDR for now. I think the scene you took would probably look far better without the HDR processing, assuming it's a sunny and well lit scene. It's quite a nice scene actually, and not a bad photo - quite nice too.
But your processing of it... ugh. I saw the last five minutes of the "results", just at the point where the squeaky-clean Cat Deeley yelled "F*CKING SHUT UP!" at the studio audience. 
It doesn't seem like laugh-a-minute stuff, but from the bits of it that I have seen, it appears to be a good parody of all the rediculous talent shows.
It was on channel 4, so may be on catch-up on demand for those on cable.
It doesn't seem like laugh-a-minute stuff, but from the bits of it that I have seen, it appears to be a good parody of all the rediculous talent shows.
It was on channel 4, so may be on catch-up on demand for those on cable.
You're in Newcastle? What have you got against the Tweedy?! Admittedly she's not the brightest bulb in the room and doesn't care much for toilet attendants (then again, who does?), but I'll have to think whether I'd kick her out of bed for that.
You can contest speeding tickets here too, but you'll end up in front of a petty magistrate that probably doesn't drive a car themselves because their excessive public salary can afford them a house just round the corner so they can walk to work in their hemp slippers whilst hugging some precious, angelic juvenile delinquents. Afaik you also need to be able to prove that you were avoiding an accident or suchlike. Naturally, since you avoided the accident, there tends to be no evidence of something that didn't happen, so you're screwed. Afaik, performing a safe overtake is no excuse either. Indeed, you'll often find a speed camera placed in the one spot where it's safe to overtake after you've been trundling along behind a lorry or caravan for the past ten miles.
Wow, you actually believe that?
If only reality were so simple.
Well, excuse the link to a paper which is best used as bogroll, but the Daily Mail article suffices here, and might give you an idea of the scale of the problem in the UK: link
I agree. However perhaps what you don't understand is that the DNA database in the UK doesn't just consist of convicted people. It includes people who were unsuccessfully charged with crimes. Hell, it includes people that have never even been charged. Your DNA is routinely taken in a whole variety of situations, put on the DNA database, and never removed. The DNA database should stay, but for convicts.
Have to agree there. If anything, let's have a few more ballistic subs. In a "have your say" section of the BBC news website about our two new aircraft carriers, one succinct comment pretty much summed things up (bearing in mind we spend £30+billion a year on benefits) which read along the lines of: "Only £3bn each? At that price, let's have a dozen of them. We're going to need all the firepower we can get when everything kicks off in the future."
It's not hard to find the various blogs, forum postings, etc, with the "unwritten rules" of the FIA. Rule #1 is usually "you may not pass or defend against a red car".
Unfortunately for Bourdais, that now seems to be reality.
You can tell even the drivers concerned are getting pissed off and struggling to toe the line in their comments and not attract the wrath of the FIA. Look at Hamilton's near monosyllabic post-race interview in which he commented that he got the same penalty as Massa. Massa went off the road and drove into Hamilton, spinning him round. Hamilton went too deep into T1, as did half of the field, and didn't hit or particularly disadvantage anyone - he hurt himself more than anything with that stunt.
Bourdais himself said that he didn't know what to do to avoid getting a penalty other than rolling out the red carpet.
It's simple mate - you just need to drive a Ferrari.
I've got a HD tv, and though about subscribing to the HD service next year with a V+ box, assuming the BBC will broadcast it in HD. I really don't think I'll bother now, as it's barely even fun to watch any more. What's the point in going racing when it turns into a game of wheel of fortune, where every bit of the wheel is coloured red?
Unfortunately for Bourdais, that now seems to be reality.
You can tell even the drivers concerned are getting pissed off and struggling to toe the line in their comments and not attract the wrath of the FIA. Look at Hamilton's near monosyllabic post-race interview in which he commented that he got the same penalty as Massa. Massa went off the road and drove into Hamilton, spinning him round. Hamilton went too deep into T1, as did half of the field, and didn't hit or particularly disadvantage anyone - he hurt himself more than anything with that stunt.
Bourdais himself said that he didn't know what to do to avoid getting a penalty other than rolling out the red carpet.
It's simple mate - you just need to drive a Ferrari.
I've got a HD tv, and though about subscribing to the HD service next year with a V+ box, assuming the BBC will broadcast it in HD. I really don't think I'll bother now, as it's barely even fun to watch any more. What's the point in going racing when it turns into a game of wheel of fortune, where every bit of the wheel is coloured red?
:o
As Don says, don't even think about doing it unless there's a pro there who they're paying to get the "keepers".
I really like the last one - nice composition and nice colours.
It gives you a 'road trip' feel to it, makes you wonder where the car's going, what's at the end of the road, etc.The other two aren't really of anything imo. Something in a car park, and a bit of wheat. Not enough there to hold my attention, but that's more than compensated for by the quality of the last shot.
Hmm that's a fair point aboutthe size of the place, it's something I can't judge and can't envisage living on our crowded little island. I expect that there are places more remote than I can imagine. I just think that as a public road, you never can be 100% sure like you would be on a track.
Actually come to think of it, yes it does sound a little horrifying that it can still continue in the UK, although wiki says that "Its disadvantages are that for safety reasons they have to be run in very remote (generally rural) areas, and late at night. One reason for their decline has been the reduction in areas available for running the events..." so I guess it's not that bad.
I think you read what I said the wrong way. I'm certainly not wishing anything bad upon you for what you've posted - as you've already explained the efforts you went to to reduce the risks (my issue being with your belief that you car can stop and start so fast that you couldn't possibly hit anything). What I said was relating to your new Kenne Bell when you fit it in the future; you showed a video of the performance of it and it was that I was referring to when I said that if you loon about on the roads using that kind of performance, then you probably deserve to get wedged under a truck trailer.
But as you've said, it's a circuit car and you'll be using it on the circuit, then fair enough - and it's gonna be a bit, umm, quick.
So no there's no need for any more argument, and no hard feelings I hope, as there were certainly no death wishes being thrown around.I'm not jealous of the car, but that airstrip you mentioned... now having a decent quality airstrip within range and owned by a friend is something to get jealous about, the fun you must be able to have looning about on there.
No, I don't think my ego is my problem - my problem is those who use any excuse and any assumption to do excessive speeds on public roads.
I don't give a flying f*ck how quickly you think your car can accelerate and stop. It has nothing to do with what your car can do, but rather more to do with how quickly you can react (assuming you're not Superman), and most of all, how quickly anyone else in your path can react.
At the end of the day, you're the one getting extremely defensive. I thought my post was quite reasonable - it acknowledged that it could have been much worse if you'd been doing it in a less appropriate area, but that it's still a public road and just isn't ever totally appropriate. But your response just confirms the stereotype I was suspecting all along. You're 27 and a father, but have the "I can react/drive quicker than anything in my path" attitude of a 17 year old. Grow up.
If you're using all that performance on a track? Honestly?
That's seriously impressive. The acceleration just doesn't let off until the revs run out. I'm not interested in the American V8/drag racing/quarter mile scene, but that must be a serious buzz to drive, and I can see why you'd work hard and save towards experiencing that kind of thrill.
If you're using all that performance on the public road? Honestly?
I'll clap if you kill yourself under a truck trailer. Because at least then you've taken yourself out before you kill the person/people/family you didn't see.
Last edited by STROBE, .
I'm sorry, who's making the assumptions?
Sunshine, what you fail to realise is that ultimtely it's a public road, and I think that's what many people here have an issue with. Yes, it's in a remote area, yes you say it's lit.
But you don't know that there isn't anybody on it before you come screaming through at 120mph. You assume there isn't, but you don't know. Why? Because it's a public road.
Anybody could be there. Some farmer pulling out of a field after his GPS-controlled harvesters have been running all night until one suffered a breakdown. Some paralytically drunk college kid dropped off in the middle of nowhere as a hilarious practical joke. Fair enough if the road was lit, but it looks pretty unlit on the video, and an unlit road could contain a broken down truck with an electrical failure and no lights.
All these are very remote (even almost totally implausible) possibilities, but ultimately as a public road, they have a right to be there, and a right not to get killed by someone doing 120mph and 1/4 mile testing who is assuming that the road is clear.
The message is simple. It's good that you didn't go dragging through the town and blasting through intersections and red lights. But ultimately, keep it to the track.
My thoughts too.
No need for the sarky comments (admittedly toungue in cheek, but they're his images, and he can do what he wants with them), especially when this picture...
...appears to suffer from either an excessive soft focus filter, or camera shake.
What a beautiful view. I know I keep saying it but you're really lucky to have such vistas on your doorstep. (Although according to some people, you must be a virgin with a pre-ordered Canon 5D Mk II
) You've got to go back and re-shoot it when the bridge is in the sun!It's rather difficult to anticipate something you can't see, i.e. at night, out of the range of your headlights, at a speed where you can't even move your foot to the brake pedal before covering the distance illuminated by your lights.
Nothing, really. But I thought this discussion was about the OP's activities. He's not on a motorway - I doubt you'd consider stopping your car in order to check your 1/4 mile time on an autobahn. Motorways have no junctions other than blended sliproads and of course the directions of traffic are separated, which makes it infinitely safer to do 120mph on a deserted motorway than anywhere else, and pretty retarded to do 120mph at night on anything that isn't a motorway.
Exactly. Obviously not practical on an unlit motorway, but on any other roads it's certainly safe to say you should always at least be able to make a significant reaction in the road you can see.
Driving on the public road has a few parts to it:
1. Anticipation
2. Anticipation
3. Concentration
4. Anticipation
5. Car control
6. Anticipation
Guess which of those is physically impossible to achieve when driving at 120mph at night?
With your attitude, I hope you never get one.
The only people that need to shut the f*ck up are those such as yourself that trivialise playing god with innocent people's lives. IMO.
Judging by the youtube description and the appearance of what looks like a roadside grass verge in the video, I'm guessing it's on the public roads...
illepallFGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG