The online racing simulator
Searching in All forums
(985 results)
wsinda
S2 licensed
Take the speech, swap "Christian" and "Muslim", and it's ready: your sermon for the brothers of Jihadists Anonymous, next Friday at the mosque.

BTW, thread title should be "God loves me so he told me to kill you".
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from Bob Smith :
* Move RAC to AS Club
* Move FXR to KY GP Long
* Move BF1 to Westhill
* Move FO8 to KY National
* Move FOX to FE Green
* Move FXO to AS North
* Move FZR to AS Grand Touring

Lessee...
* AS Club is almost an oval. Might be great for close racing and drafting duels, but boring for hotlapping. I left it out on purpose.
* Is the FXO at home at AS North? Never done the track, but it seems a bit too fast for the FXO (or the car is under-powered for the track).
* FOX on FE Green?? Noooo! Put a saloon car there! FE Green means skipping & jumping over the kerbs. For saloon cars that's already hardly realistic, but for single-seaters it's a travesty of racing. (Suggestion: swap tracks with FXO.)

(IMHO, YMMV, etc. )
wsinda
S2 licensed
Tifosi not enthusiastic over Massa's rendition of The Barber of Seville.
wsinda
S2 licensed
Here is a suggested new set:

XFG - FE club
XRG - SO sprint1
XRT - BL gp
RB4 - SO long rev
FXO - FE green
LX4 - FE gold
LX6 - FE black rev
MRT - AS cadet
UF1 - SO sprint 2
RAC - KY national
FZ5 - BL gp rev
FOX - WE international rev
XFR - SO town
UFR - SO classic
FO8 - WE international
FXR - AS historic
XRR - AS national
FZR - AS north
BF1 - KY gp long


What I changed:
- added BF1; put all GTRs on AS; moved FZ5 to BL gp rev
- threw out KY oval; moved LX4 to FE gold, MRT to AS cadet, UF1 to SO sprint 2
- moved UFR to SO classic

What could be improved:
- take a reverse config for some of the SO tracks
- same for AS

Quote from Victor :Or I could, like orion said, pick all the most popular hotlap combo's, ie. the combo's with the most hotlaps uploaded.

That count is likely to be biased towards the current MHR combos...
Quote from duke_toaster :Then maybe create an oval rank, a street circuit rank and maybe even a rallycross rank.

An oval seems a weird place to do hotlapping. A rallycross rank would be nice, though. How about this:

XFG - BL rallyx
XRG - FE rallyx gn rev
RB4 - FE rallyx
LX4 - BL rallyx rev
UF1 - FE rallyx gn
FZ5 - FE rallyx rev
wsinda
S2 licensed
The videos don't work here (Firefox, VirtualDub installed). The WDG validator throws errrors on the format for the EMBED tags ("Error: element EMBED not defined in this HTML version").

Seems like IE is more forgiving in this respect than Firefox.
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from bbman :Verstappen heard one too many dutch-jokes...

Nah.

"Half-way through the turn, Verstappen suddenly understood the dutch-jokes he'd been told."

(Looking at the picture, somehow the expression "doggy style" comes to mind... )
Last edited by wsinda, .
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from SamH :I'm beginning to think that "SRA" or "SMRA" (Sim Motor Racing Authority/Association) is not an unreasonable name for it.

How about "SImulated Motorsports Competition Authority? It has an easy-to-pronounce acronym.
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from jayhawk :To the angry atheists: what has God and religion done to you to hold all this hate and frustration?

Check this link. It's a collection of sick things that Americans have said in the name of their faith. And not all quoted persons are extreme right-wing evangelists: some are/were U.S. president. With nuts like these, it's understandable that an atheist living in the USA becomes angry and frustrated.
wsinda
S2 licensed
"The new version of LFSTweak allows modification of all physics variables."

or

"Hmm, how do I Shift-S in this thing?"
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from Renku :Certainly not! I don't think ban first and then might answer some questions later mentality should spread wider than it already is.

Renku, the question of the OP was about the STCC license system, not about the way the STCC admins do their job. You are mis-using this thread to pick up an old fight with the admins -- and you're not even the first in this thread to do so.

This is helping no one.
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from Becky Rose :There are some features of the STCC which should be part of the full game.

Another area where LFS could facilitate STCC and similar systems is the administration of licenses. A "licensed" server would send its scoring (points + promotions) to LFSW. At the output side, LFSW would provide a webpage to show the status of someone's license(s), and a query service where servers can retrieve the license status. For the end-user, this would look as if licenses were integrated into LFS.

On the server side, the situation would remain as it is with STCC: a third-party add-on manages the races on the server, and LFS only provides the "hooks". Server admins would still be free to choose: whether to work with licenses or not, the scoring method, limitations on car & track choice, penalties, etc.
wsinda
S2 licensed
"Yes, it's blown! Don't look at me! You insisted on installing that @$$#%$ espresso machine!!"
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from axus :"Data is the raw material on which a computer operates. When some appropriate structure has been applied to the data then it becomes information.
... *insert some silly example*"
is more than sufficient.

Then further down, if your way of explaining is so shit that you have to explain your explanation, you really should be shot in the face.

I don't think it's an explanation of an explanation. I read it as an explanation of a definition. First they define the concepts of "data" and "information". You might think you already know what they mean, but the textbook gives then a new meaning. Then, they need to explain how these definitions differ from your common-sense understanding.

Nevertheless, the definition strikes me as silly. It would mean that the randomly scrambled memory bits that you get when you turn on the computer are "data". But a list of carefully calculated numbers on a sheet of paper is not "data" (because a computer can't operate on it), so it can't be "information" either.
wsinda
S2 licensed
Ford team reconsiders outsourcing maintenance
wsinda
S2 licensed
Red Bull team finally finds roadmap to 2008 Championship.
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from SamH :but are the observations about those Christian denominations really a part of your argument against the existence of god?

Well, it's not exactly about the denominations. I've met a nun who was 100% tolerant of other world views (and a great person, too). I've met a once-in-a-year-to-mass Catholic who was denigrating about atheists without ever having thought about it. The bigotry is not part of my argument against the existence of god. It's part of my reason to become vocal about it, and to re-label myself.
Quote :Free yourself.. become a pure atheist! One that isn't polluted by religious doctrines! (including abhorrence thereof!)

Yeah. Who knows, some day I might become a true atheist and embrace agnosticism again. I was born free of sin, um, I mean religion. I only need to get back to that blessed state.
Quote from Hankstar :I concluded that god was created in the image of man

The big question is, of course: Did god just evolve by pure chance, or is he the product of some Intelligent Designer?
Last edited by wsinda, .
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from SamH :See.. most (read: all so far) atheists I know, when I ask them why they're atheist and not agnostic, tell me that they began life as Christian but realised that the whole thing's a big lie.. an insurance policy for the afterlife. Something that's been over-sold to them. They're generally also very angry about it. They hate religion because of the time they lost to it, and because of the misery it brought them in childhood (eg: catholics teachings to minors about hell for non-believers). The atheist stance, thus, forms from a specific rejection of the ideology.

I'll be your exception, then, because I have taken the reverse route. I've been non-religious all my life. Wasn't brought up to believe, and never felt any need to. In my twenties I used to call myself an agnostic: existence of god is undecidable, so it's no use to fuss&fight. Let each have his own view, live in peace, and not bother his fellow men.

I'm in my forties now, and in recent years I've drifted towards atheism. One reason is the growing realisation that accepted scientific theories, most notably evolution, are fundamentally incompatible with religion. (I know there are escape routes, but I see them as uneasy compromises.)

Another reason is my growing anger about the imbalance between religious and non-religious people. Many Christians demand respect for their faith and traditions, but are not willing to respect the views of the non-religious. Too many times I've heard a Christian say that if you lose your faith then you lose all moral grounding. Too many times I have heard the Pope, or some other spiritual leader, make claims and verdicts for all of humanity instead of just his own flock. I can no longer be indifferent.
wsinda
S2 licensed
Wrecker? Who, me??
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :Of course I just happen to share that hallucination / fantasy with hundreds of millions of other people!

You may say so, but there is absolutely no way you can know it's the same, as you've just declared all ways to exchange thoughts as not applicable to your god.
Quote :Georg Cantor, although that was dealing with "numbers larger than infinity" (!?).

Ah yes, his diagonal argument to prove that the cardinality of the real numbers is higher than that of the natural numbers. Elegant, and not that hard to grasp. If you really want something that boggles the mind you should take a look at string theory with its 27 dimensions. Still, it's the daily work for hundreds of theoretical physicists.
Quote :you or anyone else cannot grasp infinity in real terms, rather you can express it and conceptualise it, but you cannot intrinsically and completely comprehend it.

That's a ... peculiar way to reason. In the same vein you could state that you can't "completely comprehend" a drop of water, because it contains gazillions of atoms tumbling around -- far too much for any human mind to understand.

wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from SamH :Perhaps you're referring to the "weak" versus "strong" agnostic, which doesn't refer to their lack of belief so much as it refers to their interest (or lack thereof) in pursuing the debate.

Yes, I meant the "weak" versus "strong" agnosticism (at least, as described in Wikipedia).
Quote :Once again, atheism sets out its position in a contrary stance to that of (I sense in this example Judaism and Christianity) the addressing of specific beliefs in a religion. What those granular specifics that Christians or Jews believe, about their god, should not be components in an argument against the existence of god.

Agreed. Proving that a piece of wood from Mt. Ararat is just an oaken plank of 1000 years old does not disprove the existence of god. I only mentioned those as easy-to-recognise examples. But IMO also the most central aspects of religion - most notably, that god(s) created the universe and mankind - have been falsified.
Quote :Does he prove that God doesn't exist? Or does he just pick particular aspects of specific religions to build a case against those religions, and thus project that therefore god doesn't exist?

No, Dawkins aims his arrows at the core of religion.
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :Logically impossible? Who cares? Logic is again,based on human thought and discovery. To make that assertion, you would have to be somehow greater that both of those qualities - which I don't think is the case.

This never ceases to amaze me: how can a finite mind be arrogant enough (not directed at you personally btw!) to say that the infinite God is impossible? That, from MY perspective is what's totally illogical, even by human standards. Once again, you're applying scientific principles where they are completely not applicable, 100%. If a being has the capacity to create "something" from "nothing" (the big bang) I don't think we're in a position to even comment on the intellect, or the "properties" of their existence.

When we want to convince other people of our views, we have only a couple of valid ways to do so: hard physical evidence, logical reasoning, and the scientific method. You're brushing them aside: you say that none of these apply to your definition of god. If you do, then all discussion stops. You may have some notion of god, but it's your own personal experience. For others it can in no way be distinguished from a hallucination or a fantasy. It's equally valid to talk about pink unicorns or the spaghetti monsters.
Quote :The concept of infinity, whilst mathematically sound is so far beyond the ultimate comprehension of humans that it's made certain mathematicians insane - and I can understand why.

Quite to the contrary. Infinity can be expressed in five simple postulates from a guy named Peano. No mathematician has ever gone insane by looking at the definition of the natural numbers.
Quote :Really, all you're saying is "I can't understand God, therefore he cannot exist".

No, I'm saying that god, as commonly defined, is not consistent with the facts.
wsinda
S2 licensed
1.4 seconds before that "Oh blast, I knew I'd forgotten something" moment...

-----

And now you should really watch out for hot exhaust pipes.
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from SamH :The single agnostic identifier is that they acknowledge that it cannot be known or proven. Nothing more than that.

I think there are two types of agnostics. The first says that he has seen as much proof that support the existence of a god as proof that support its non-existence. The second type says that it is impossible to prove either the existence or the non-existence. Where one is undecided on the matter, the other is sure that it's undecidable.

The atheist view (and mine) is that the matter is decidable. Theism makes a number of claims, and many of them have been falsified. Mankind and the universe are older than 6000 years; a worldwide flood is physically impossible; praying does not work; it's logically impossible for any being to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Etcetera. In effect, the claim of existence of god is handled as a scientific hypothesis, and this hypothesis has been refuted.
Quote :If someone could prove to me (as for something to be proven is the basis for me to become convinced of anything) that god doesn't exist, I'd happily become an atheist.

Well, then read The God delusion by Richard Dawkins. He makes a pretty good case.
Quote from Hankstar :I must say that it's refreshing to find a good solid debate on something interesting in this forum.

+1
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :It silly (IMO) because it takes more faith to think that all of matter spontaneously came from nothing (which we cannot define other than in terms of concept) billions of years ago, and the content and compostion of which just happened to eventually form a planet with precise conditions, a certain distance from a star, and some atoms came together (100 billion of them or so IIRC) to make a single celled organism which happened to just decide to evolve.

I see a number of misrepresentations here:
- The matter didn't "come from nothing". The Big Bang hypothesis only talks about the rapid expansion after the bang. There's no telling what there was prior to that, because the current physics theories are not valid for those circumstances.
- If you consider the gigantic number of stars and planets in the universe, then it's not surprising that there is a planet with "precise conditions". (See also: anthropic principle.)
- Evolution theory doesn't assume that "100 billion atoms came together" to form the first cell. That's preposterous. Before the first organisms, there must have been chemical compounds capable of simple self-replication. (Unfortunately, they didn't fossilise.)
- The first organisms did not "happen to just decide to evolve". Evolution is the inevitable consequence of a few properties: variation, self-replication and environmental pressures.
Quote :The requirement humans have for love and affection does not serve any scientific / evolutionary purpose, and should therefore be eradicated from our genetic pool

That's plain wrong. Even simple simulations show that cooperation between individuals is in many cases advantageous and evolutionary stable. In the human mind, the tendency for cooperative behaviour is experienced as love, compassion and parental care.
Quote : It becomes a religion in itself when you start to worship the human mind as your deity - humanism. Everyone worships something whether they profess to or not - most of the time it's simply oneself.

If you call that humanism, then you'd better read up on the subject. To worship means that you value yourself as having less worth than some other entity, individual, or deity. That's something that is completely alien to humanism. And worshiping yourself is a contradiction in itself. (Unless you're referring to egoism, which is also contrary to humanism.)
wsinda
S2 licensed
Quote from Racer Y :For one thing, I'd like to see some sort of data on what the majorities of the reasons for them being performed were.

Absence of contraceptives, probably.

I'm only half kidding here. The number of abortions seems to have a negative correlation with the availability of contraceptives. The countries where condoms are hard to get, and where sex education is frowned upon tend to have high numbers of abortions (be it legal or illegal).

Quote :But exactly when does a fetus get a "soul" during development?

I'm an atheist, so I'd say "never". Hardcore pro-lifers will say that it's at conception. But then there'd be lots of lost souls, because only one third of all conceptions lead to pregnancy.
Quote :One thing I learned from that snuff flick I saw at the clinic was that some abortions performed were like a couple a weeks from the time of birth.

I'd be surprised if it was. In the Netherlands, abortions after 25 weeks of pregnancy are illegal. The limit is at 25 weeks because from that moment on the fetus has a chance to survive, if it would be born.
Quote :When does it get to the point it realizes it's existence?

At the age of about 2 years, IIRC.
Quote :If that fetus was capable of registering some sort of thought, wouldn't that abortion be some sort of homicide?

If you want to base the distinction (legal or illegal) on some sort of measure of "being sentient", then you're in dangerous waters! By all biological standards, an adult chimp is much more sentient than a fetus, or even a baby or toddler. So if it would be forbidden to abort a fetus past a certain stage of development, then it should also be illegal to kill apes, monkeys, and possibly even pigs and cattle.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG