Well apart from the fact that I would never use such purile language, I would have exactly the same opinion of any driver in exactly the same circumstances, (ie race and championship position), who binned it on the last lap "fighting" for a place they were never going to get.
The best racing drivers use their brain, and settle for the points.
People can interpret that as Hamilton bashing if they really want, but that would be saying a lot more about their own bias than mine.
What if it just happened that there were only 8 cars left in the race and everyone on the track would be in points position after somone crashed out?? Does that last remaining driver not deserve the final point?
He crashed, that's the ultimate failure in a race. IMO you don't deserve any kind of placing if you crash out.
I think Hamiltons crash was a stupid mistake on his part. Irrespective of his championship standing he threw away a podium finish over a non opportunity to pass Button. His realistic chance of passing Button was tiny, KERS or not.
Just one more example of why Hamilton dispite his obvious ability to drive an F1 car fast just doesn't deserve to be called a great driver. He just doesn't have the smarts. Even Whitmarsh was dancing around the issue, playing politics in the post race interview at one point he even alluded to it being the only way Hamilton knows how to drive, but trying to put a postive spin on what can only be considered a humiliating result for Hamilton.
At least Hamilton himself acknowledges it, he was very quick to appologise, though interestingly without actually stating outright that he screwed up.
Only thing that I'm not clear on, is why wasn't he classified as a DNF ?? How come officially he placed 12th? I don't get that, if it's just the rules, it's a damn stupid one. Doesn't matter if you crash out inches from the line on the last lap IMO you're a DNF. Not fair on other drivers for there to be any other classification as far as I'm concerned. No matter how many laps down they might be, surely they should all gain a position.
Just one more example of why Hamilton dispite his obvious ability to drive an F1 car fast just doesn't deserve to be called a great driver. He just doesn't have the smarts. Even Whitmarsh was dancing around the issue, playing politics in the post race interview at one point he even alluded to it being the only way Hamilton knows how to drive, but trying to put a postive spin on what can only be considered a humiliating result for Hamilton.
At least Hamilton himself acknowledges it, he was very quick to appologise, though interestingly without actually stating outright that he screwed up.
Only thing that I'm not clear on, is why wasn't he classified as a DNF ?? How come officially he placed 12th? I don't get that, if it's just the rules, it's a damn stupid one. Doesn't matter if you crash out inches from the line on the last lap IMO you're a DNF. Not fair on other drivers for there to be any other classification as far as I'm concerned. No matter how many laps down they might be, surely they should all gain a position.
Kovalainen, Barrichello or Button for the win. All the top qualifiers are on very similar race pace but these three guys are only one stopping, with Barrichello staying out the longest by one lap.
No you can't !
It's illegal. It is irrelevant if a Wireless network has "open" security. Unless you gain explicit consent of the owner of the network you are considered to be making unauthorised use of a private network, which is an offense under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Plus if you use it to access the internet via the Wireless network, that is also an offence under the Communications Act 2003.
People have been arrested and prosecuted for it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/23/ukcrime.news
Now that was close !!
Hmm.. British Troops, American air bourne ordnance fire.. anything familiar with this scene??
Not convinced by that video. Notice how he doesn't wobble, yet the camera does? Either he's not really there, or the actual buffering he gets from the plane is relatively low. As I said, the camera wobbles, it's not exactly blown off it's stand.
I think it's a trick of angles. The plane is nowhere as low as it appears to be IMO.
Edited to add - I'm refering to the video in the first post.
I think it's a trick of angles. The plane is nowhere as low as it appears to be IMO.
Edited to add - I'm refering to the video in the first post.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
I'm going to have to beg to differ. The late 60's was epitomised by "psychodelic rock" bands. Everyone and their mother was playing "undanceable" music. As for the Beatles being in a league of their own again I disagree, I give you Deep Purple & Pink Floyd for starters both very experimental with regards to recording techniques in the late 60's. Pink Floyd pioneered quadrophonic LPs ! For musicians/bands that truely changed the face of music as we know it look to David Bowie, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Led Zepplin, Jimmy Hendrix et al. Predating that era there were a plethora of Rock n Roll and Jazz bands/musicians that truely changed the worlds perception of music.
The Beatles?? Early music: generic R&B Rock n Roll, later music: hippy inspired semi-psychodelic stuff. Nothing that other bands weren't doing at the same time.
That's just my opinion. I don't dislike the Beatles, I enjoy some of their music. I just don't think they were the world changing band everyone makes them out to be. Influential in the sense that they inspired lots of kids to become musicians, yes. Musically original and particularly gifted musicians, no. IMHO.
Actually Trafalgar is pretty empty of pigeons these days.
At least compared to two decades ago when you could hardly walk because of them.Come to think of it, you have a point. I'll subscribe to that theory too I think.
And every boy band that ever existed - The Beatles true legacy.
I just love this argument when it comes to music. Boils down to "you dont like what I like so you must be a moron/idiot/insert perjorative term here"
Actually, (speaking as an amateur musician), the Beatles are a popular musical phenomenom. Whilst it's true that their music has inspired many generations of aspiring musicians, (well duh - by definition being popular/successfull is going to ensure that), their actual musical talent is nothing particularly inspiring. Look around at other bands of the time and you'll see that they weren't doing anything new or original or doing it particularly well for that matter. What they did have over the others was a huge following of fans, (predominantly female), based on the same reasons any modern boy band has huge female fan base. It wasn't their musical talent that made them popular and famous.
Yes, they were very influential. But as I said, it was a product of fame not of talent.
Become famous/popular = get heard by more people = become influential
Another significant factor in their popularity is their early break up, and the popularity of John Lennon as a persona, (especially relating to his political views), particularly after leaving the Beatles and because of his untimely end.
To sum up:
They had good vocal harmonisation, though not uniquely better than some other bands at the time. They were all "good looking" lads. They sang about love a lot, which girls just love. They had a huge female following. They played generic rythm and blues based rock n roll, and played it no better than some other bands at the time and certainly no more uniquely.
But then women would never win any medals in atheletic events.
I can't see Feminists agreeing to that no matter what their stance on sexual equality.
I'd be very interested to see where you got the sports-science or even basic scientific evidence for that statement.
Testosterone aids in the hypertrophy of skeletal musculature, (among other things), and skeletal musculature is (semi) permanent, as long as you give your body a reason to keep it, ie stimulate it with weight training. Testosterone levels are a large part of why women can't build up the same levels of skeletal muscles as men. If the athelete in question had been born a man and became transgendered only a year or two ago then they would have built up a lot of musculature that no woman with normal levels of testosterone would be able to achieve. Whilst Testosterone is very important in the maintenance of muscle mass, mucular atrophy is a slow process, (assuming nutrition is maintained at normal levels).
This article makes reference to a very small study on the matter, clearly showing that even 3 years after surgery and continous hormone treatment transgendered individuals still retain significant amounts of musculature over naturally born women.
"Gooren and Bunck found muscle mass of M-F transgendered individuals decreased after surgery and three years of hormone therapy. 19 M-F transgendered individuals were used in the study and compared to male and females not taking hormone therapy. The research shows transgendered M-F have greater thigh muscle mass than females. The study was published in the European Journal of Endocrinology (vol. 151 p.425)"
Sorry to pull up an old thread but I was just thinking of this, having had the pleasure of watching several re-runs of both series on Dave recently. 
Anyway... IMO:
Top Gear whilst admitedly entertaining, is truely crap as a motor journalism program if you're interested in actually knowing anything about how good a car is. It's so unbelievably biased by "his highnesses" completely unobjective car testing that it's meaningless.
Top Gear, great entertainment, rubbish Motor Journalism. None of them can drive for toffee and a lot of their "comparisons" over the years have been blatently rigged to ensure that a) The car always wins and b) German cars always win.
Fifth Gear isn't nearly as entertaining and none of the presenters have the charisma of the TG presenters, however it does at least have contributors that are qualified from a driving perspective. So as a program for actually giving a (reasonably) objective view of a cars performance etc it's leagues ahead of TG.
Anyway... IMO:
Top Gear whilst admitedly entertaining, is truely crap as a motor journalism program if you're interested in actually knowing anything about how good a car is. It's so unbelievably biased by "his highnesses" completely unobjective car testing that it's meaningless.
Top Gear, great entertainment, rubbish Motor Journalism. None of them can drive for toffee and a lot of their "comparisons" over the years have been blatently rigged to ensure that a) The car always wins and b) German cars always win.
Fifth Gear isn't nearly as entertaining and none of the presenters have the charisma of the TG presenters, however it does at least have contributors that are qualified from a driving perspective. So as a program for actually giving a (reasonably) objective view of a cars performance etc it's leagues ahead of TG.
The exterior is ok, don't like the exhaust outlets though.
The interior is gash. I can't stand all the metal, especially on the wheel which just looks like a nasty game controller, (like has been mentioned).
The interior is gash. I can't stand all the metal, especially on the wheel which just looks like a nasty game controller, (like has been mentioned).
No actually it's the principle of the videos themselves that is disrespectful.
I agree 100% with Cols point of view on this issue. If other people don't understand why we feel the way we do about it after everything that has been said then there is no further use in continuing the discussion.
So to sum up then.
Engine braking is:
Engine braking is:
- The (partial) vacuum in the Cylinders created by restricting the intake flow to a level that is unable to fully fill the cylinder during the induction phase.
- This (partial) vacuum is then acted upon by the (presumably near atmospheric) pressure on the other side of the cylinder inside the crankcase.
- The resultant force is in opposition to that coming from the transmission being caused by the momentum of the vehicle that wants to maintain its speed.
- The result being that the speed of the vehicle is reduced.
The phono plugs on the amplifier aren't gold plated, you'd be wasting money on any cable with gold plated connectors. Plus the audio quality improvements of the cable Bob linked to are going to be wasted on the system you intend to use them on.
If you were looking at standard phono cables I would say go ahead and buy the better ones as they can always be used should you get better equipment in the future. Given the cable you need is only ever going to be used in low grade equipment, (no decent equipment will ever use a 3.5mm jack), I seriously wouldn't bother with anything but the most basic of cables.
My recommendation would be to save your money on the cable and bid for that ebay system to get the speakers from it and/or a few meters of decent quality speaker cable, (such as this or this), with the saving.
But that's just my opinion of course.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
That statement in itself proves how ignorant you are of the genre in question.
Spoken like a true intellectual. Well nevermind, if it makes you feel better about yourself to insult people keep it up. No skin off my nose.
That midrange unit (the middle sized one) is shot. Not going to be reproducing anything worthwhile from that unit.
The dent in the middle of the Bass unit isn't relevant. It's just a dust cap and plays very little part in the overall sound of the speaker, (affects off axis response somewhat towards the upper part of the drive units band though).
Ahh.. cone tweeters, I remember them well.
Not surprised those speakers sound bassy. Cone tweeters have practically no extension, the mid range is going to be sucked out completely on the one speaker with the damaged drive unit. So pretty much most of the output is going to be from the bass unit.
If you turn them up enough that midrange unit is going to fall apart completely.
The dent in the middle of the Bass unit isn't relevant. It's just a dust cap and plays very little part in the overall sound of the speaker, (affects off axis response somewhat towards the upper part of the drive units band though).
Ahh.. cone tweeters, I remember them well.
Not surprised those speakers sound bassy. Cone tweeters have practically no extension, the mid range is going to be sucked out completely on the one speaker with the damaged drive unit. So pretty much most of the output is going to be from the bass unit.
If you turn them up enough that midrange unit is going to fall apart completely.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG