If you get this twice a day, you must be looking at the clock about once every 8 minutes.
It means you have a boring job.
Unless... unless... it's the magic numbers 00:00 that you see. That means you have unreliable power supply.
Let me re-phrase your problem then:
Suppose you're sitting in a chair. There is a glass of water 2 metres away from you. Both you and the glass are motionless. All positions of and movements are governed by the laws of physics.
Therefore, you will die of thirst.
You can escape this ghastly death by postulating a supernatural free will to put you in motion. But if you need that free will to stay alive, then an earthworm also needs to have free will.
(A nonsensical argument, of course, just to show that reasoning about determinism, randomness and free will is a bit tricky.)
Yep, and so do the theists. In his article The Moral Instinct, Steven Pinker argues that our moral judgment stems from a mechanism that evolution built in our psyche, and that sacred books have little weight in these matters.
Don't be offended, I'm an atheist myself. My post was all in jest.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Zeus.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Jahweh.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Brahma.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Allah.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of God.
Atheists are cowards: in every religious issue they follow the opinion of the majority.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Jahweh.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Brahma.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of Allah.
A majority of the world's population rejects the existence of God.
Atheists are cowards: in every religious issue they follow the opinion of the majority.
Daddy: OUT, son! I'll drive. You're too young to race. And it's MY car. And I want my lap record back.
All beliefs are seemingly incredible. When people join a new faith, they merely switch from one set of logic-defying claims to another.
If you have little to lose, a new faith (with promises of brotherly love, heavenly glory and earthly bonuses) may be a risk worth taking. The first ones to embrace a new religion are usually the poor and wretched folks -- rarely the elite.
36, 1, 1: Wrong, 36 is too old to be called a boy.
18, 2, 1: Could be.
12, 3, 1: Could be.
9, 4, 1: Could be.
9, 2, 2: Could be.
6, 6, 1: Questionable, there is no single oldest kid.
6, 3, 2: Questionable, 6 is too young to be playing drums (is it?).
Still many solutions left. Unless the youngest two happen to be twins, then there is only 1 possibility: 9, 2, 2.
18, 2, 1: Could be.
12, 3, 1: Could be.
9, 4, 1: Could be.
9, 2, 2: Could be.
6, 6, 1: Questionable, there is no single oldest kid.
6, 3, 2: Questionable, 6 is too young to be playing drums (is it?).
Still many solutions left. Unless the youngest two happen to be twins, then there is only 1 possibility: 9, 2, 2.
Free will (or lack thereof) is not much use in court cases:
Lawyer: Your Honor, you can't sentence my client. His behavior was fully determined by his environment. He has no free will, so he can't be held accountable for his deeds.
Judge: I agree, there is no free will. Therefore, you will understand that I have no choice but to sentence your client to life imprisonment.
How can you determine that an animal has no free will? (Unless you deny an animal free will by definition.) If an animal does not behave as expected, do you take that as evidence of free will, or is it evidence that you haven't fully studied its instincts/conditioning? And if you choose the latter, why can't that be applied to human behavior?
The whole subject of free will is incredibly shaky IMHO. So shaky as to make any discussion of the topic meaningless.
(For those who still want to look at it: Daniel Dennett has written "The evolution of free will", where he argues that the same evolutionary processes that developed bacteria into intelligent mammals can also explain the birth of free will.)
No, this is not possible. LRA shows all setup data that is present in the file format. The rest of the setup data (caster, diff lock, tyre pressure, etc.) is not written to the RAF file by LFS.
Version 0.8 is ready.
New features:
New features:
- Editable track sectors. Sectors are saved for each track.
- Multiple languages possible. (Current distribution includes English and Dutch translations.) This also opens the possibility to change the hotkey combinations for the menu items.
- Hotkey F2 to hide/show all panes.
- Export lap data to CSV file (from context menu of legend).
- Export graph data to CSV file (from context menu of graphs).
- Tooltips on rulers were not switched by menu option.
Last edited by wsinda, .
So has Protestantism: many of the pioneers of the Reformation were persecuted, some (e.g. Jan Hus) were burnt at the stake. And so has Islam: Muhammad and his first followers had to flee Mecca to save their lives.
This seems to be standard procedure for the early stages of a religion. The powers that be don't like the new stuff, because it's usually the reformers/discontents who join the new faith. The revolutionaries are oppressed, but sometimes they win.
I think it does. As I read your post, you claim that Christianity must have something special, based on the facts that you mention. My view is that the history of Christianity fits in the normal course of action.
It certainly isn't a simple subject. But there has been some scientific work that attempts to explain how religion came about. For example, "Darwin's cathedral" by David Sloan Wilson.
Last edited by wsinda, .
As religions go, Christianity is nothing special. Hinduism has a longer tradition (and if you claim the history of Judaism for Christianity, then Islam can do that too). Buddhism and Hinduism have had more followers, until the 16th century when the Europeans started colonizing and baptizing the world -- a conquest that was brought by the power of the gun and the germ, not by religious ideas.
Yes. It's a depressing notion, don't you think? Unfortunately, the alternative offered by religion isn't any better: to be created by some supernatural being who knows everything you do and think, has even foreseen it all, and who will judge you afterwards. We're all puppets in the hands, -- or tentacles -- of the Supreme Being (who, despite being a Being, was not created by anything else). Even this sentence that I write has been foreseen and foreordained by it/him/her.
Because it would be a very cruel god to create a huge flood and let all his swimming creatures enjoy its glory, only to let all that precious water leak away after a few weeks, leaving behind a few miserly oceans.
You have just denied religion its entire raison d'etre. Religion is a community thing. If everyone simply believed whatever they saw fit, but not ever tell others about it, there would be no religion.
Lol! Did you need a lot of stitches?
I doubt if that would work. AFAIK an smx file is simply a collection of colour-labeled vertices. Some of those may be part of a brake marker -- though from looking at the display of AnalyseForSpeed it seems like brake markers are too small to be included in the smx. But even if they were there, distinguishing them from the other objects would be very hard.
Ah, now I see what you mean. A semi-automatic way to record the positions. It would indeed work, but it requires you to drive to every brake marker of every track config. And once more for the reverse config. Ouch.
Sounds just like your typical everyday conspiracy theory. There probably is statement in it saying that "the fact that you don't feel manipulated and don't see it only proves how extremely clever these guys are".
No, because it sounds more like a rant on LFS than like praise for GT5.
:feedtroll
Yeah. I was sure I'd heard that sound before... then I remembered.
The entire problem is groupthink.
Religion is an effective way to create social cohesion. But it's not the only way: nationality, ethnicity (Hutu vs. Tutsi), political views (Nazism vs. Marxism) are also very good at creating cohesion.* Social cohesion can be beneficial. But when it goes awry you get groupthink, and that's when people become willing to go to war ("right or wrong -- my country"). They are prepared to slaughter other humans just because they belong to the other group.
The more absolute the claims that define the group, the higher the risk of derailment. And that puts many religions with their myths of salvation/damnation, their commandments etc., at a high risk of causing war.
The Western countries have seen a gradual decrease in membership of organised religions. But that's no use if people switch to other ways of defining themselves (e.g. nationality), with equal fanaticism.
*: Less effective, but still working: grippers vs. drifters, LFS vs. rFactor.
Religion is an effective way to create social cohesion. But it's not the only way: nationality, ethnicity (Hutu vs. Tutsi), political views (Nazism vs. Marxism) are also very good at creating cohesion.* Social cohesion can be beneficial. But when it goes awry you get groupthink, and that's when people become willing to go to war ("right or wrong -- my country"). They are prepared to slaughter other humans just because they belong to the other group.
The more absolute the claims that define the group, the higher the risk of derailment. And that puts many religions with their myths of salvation/damnation, their commandments etc., at a high risk of causing war.
The Western countries have seen a gradual decrease in membership of organised religions. But that's no use if people switch to other ways of defining themselves (e.g. nationality), with equal fanaticism.
*: Less effective, but still working: grippers vs. drifters, LFS vs. rFactor.
Questions about getting Racer to work are best asked on the Racer forum.
... and because of that, it often is.
Not sure which is more disgusting to me: the haircut, or this:
Uniform policy? Businesslike? The kid's 11! It's a bleedin' primary school!
(If they want to be businesslike, they should outlaw the haircut on grounds of violation of trademark.)
Uniform policy? Businesslike? The kid's 11! It's a bleedin' primary school!
(If they want to be businesslike, they should outlaw the haircut on grounds of violation of trademark.)
For sale! A bargain at only $1,000,000! In truly original condition: Alfred Hitchcock's car.
(Or was it Mel Brooks'?)
(Or was it Mel Brooks'?)
That's not what I'm trying to find out. The RAF file already tells me when/where the brake pedal is pressed. What I want to do is relate that point to the brake marker signs that are visible when you drive, so my program can print that the braking point for, say, T1 at BL1 was at 137m.
Correct, but I think I can calculate the start of the turn from the track coordinates that are in the PTH file.
The location of the brake markers is probably stored somewhere in the (undocumented) track data. But ideally, these positions have been calculated from the track coordinates when Eric designed the track, using some kind of method. It's this method I'm trying to find.
Calculating position of brake-distance markers
Does anyone know if it's possible to determine the position of the brake-distance markers (200m, 150m, 100m, etc.) before a corner?
My idea is to plot these markers in the screens of my replay analyser, so you can quickly see the position of the brake points and turn-in points. (I guess it would be derived from the data in the PTH file.) But it really has to be consistent with the actual positions inside LFS, otherwise it would be no use.
My idea is to plot these markers in the screens of my replay analyser, so you can quickly see the position of the brake points and turn-in points. (I guess it would be derived from the data in the PTH file.) But it really has to be consistent with the actual positions inside LFS, otherwise it would be no use.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG