I just did three laps each with both the LX6 and the RAC on Blackwood (I never drive there with these cars), and I got literally identical times for all three laps. So even if the RAC is harder to drive, I would seriously consider it if I were racing an LX6. I still don't think it's the hardest to drive. It is definitely more tail happy than most cars... but that makes it FUN!

I also find the MRT easier to drive than, say the BF1, lol. Idk, I guess I'm different from most people, but I find that you can actually recover from a slide most of the time in the MRT as long as you can snap the wheel back fast enough (which isn't REALLY that hard... you just have to be able to tell when to do it.)

I haven't read most of the replys here, but I simply don't understand what's so difficult about the RAC?! Personally I find the BF1 much harder to drive. The RAC is actually very controllable. It has a significant amount of understeer - which is nice, but if you need to you can flick the rear end out. Sure, once the rear end comes loose it REALLY likes to slide, but the thing is that this car can still be recovered from very extreme angles. More than most of the other cars I believe, and TBH, once you get used to countersteering a LOT, this car becomes easy, and very enjoyable to drive!

Last edited by Stang70Fastback, Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:51.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Why didn't they ever repeted that, surely the technology got more advancier since '69..

Technology is light years ahead of where it was then. How is it that they did in one year, what NASA expects to be able to re-create in 20? The answer comes down to funding.

Remember that 40 years ago NASA had a practically infinite budget with which to research/build/test/execute all phases of the lunar missions. Today, partly because of the war, partly because of Bush, and partly because of Americans' stupid views that space exploration and NASA are a waste of money and do nothing to benefit mankind, NASA has to make due with a budget that really isn't going to get us anywhere very fast.

If you recall, a few weeks ago, there was an uprising in the scientific community when NASA claimed that they would be leaving one of the Mars rovers out to dry in order to put the money towards newer projects. It is amazing that NASA has to abandon equipment that is FUNNY FUNCTIONAL on another planet just to be able to fund other endeavors.

It is sad that NASA has become what it is. The 60s and 70s were the glory years for that organization. People actually cared about space exploration, NASA could afford to build amazing spacecraft and perform amazing thought-to-be-impossible feats of engineering. It's sad that the only operational spacecraft today is the space shuttle, which is only still in use because it is the only piece of equipment we have to complete the construction of the space station. The reality is that it is old, outdated and dangerous and will be retired as soon as construction of the ISS is complete. The shuttle is kind of like my car. Very old, falling apart, but unfortunately the only thing I have to get me from point A to B, so until I can afford a new car, I'll be stuck driving this one... no matter how many problems it develops.

Last edited by Stang70Fastback, Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:18.

Quote from Thorvertonian :

The idle process is called Vista

Ahh good point. I wasn't paying attention to the OS.

Either way though, looks like he has more running than necessary.

Quote from evilgenius :

I sometimes make my dekstop look nice and clean.. but in reality.. most of the time its a mess like this

Why do you have TWO cpu and ram performance meters?!

Also, you seriously need to clean that computer up. You only have 800 MB of 2 GB free and you don't really have anything OPEN!!! How many programs are running in that taskbar of yours?! I could never live with a computer where half the ram was taken up by idle processes...

Quote from Becky Rose :

Here's one, as you guys can aim why dont most of you aim at the porcelain rather than the water so that there is no noise?

One step ahead of you there. I don't see what the "splash-pack" issue is. As long as you aim for juuuuuuust under the lip, the only place it can splash is INTO the toiled bowl. PHYSICS people... PHYSICS.

Quote from Hankstar :

Theoretically, you don't need mini-nukes. Thermite charges would do it.

Theoretically.

So would a plane.

I know - useless statement - but I stand by my 'theory.'

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Depends on how you want to take out the central columns. The US has small demolition nuclear charges that would account for the extreme heat and melted steel found weeks later at the site.

Mike - Please do some research for yourself.

But don't you think that if they wanted to be "quiet" about it they'd choose something other than nuclear charges?

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Tritium, for those who don't know is found after nuclear explosions.

Apparently, according this this report, which was produced surprisingly quickly after 911, explains the increased levels by stating it was due to exit signs.

I'm glad they explained this so quickly, in fact before any claims were made.

I think 'nuclear' explosives is taking things a bit too far, don't you? I think if you stick with 'regular' explosives your story will seem that much more plausible.

Quote from Mazz4200 :

i just wonder if there's any link with this stuff and Hurricane Katrina ? or is that a leap to far ?

That's a few leaps too far

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Actually, even the History channel now say's that the US had prior notice ( at least 12 days ) of Pearl Harbour, please do some research before calling me a liar.
Why do you think the carriers left prior to the attack ?

I'm checking the other details now.

I have heard this as well. They were looking for an excuse to go to war, and the Pearl Harbour attacks were the perfect excuse. However, I've also heard that they were expecting the attack to come somewhere in the Philippines or something, and not Pearl Harbour. But I don't know too much on that.

As for the lunar landings... well if anyone here calls those fake, I WILL be laughing at them for a loooooong while.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

The NIST has stated in it's official report that the floors DID NOT PANCAKE.

What's your theory, or any other official theory accounting for the collapse ?

Did you read my post? That's my theory. You're right... it didn't pancake! Read my post!!!

I'll pass. I've got enough issues keeping this thing cool in my dorm room...

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Next theory please, no matter what you saw or not.

My theory explains this, whether you like it or not ......

You say that as if your theory has no questionable aspects to it. The fact remains, however, that your theory also has many unexplainable parts too.

Also, I really, TRULY doubt that that scale test could come close to reproducing the actual situations that the two towers were placed in. Things to keep in mind are:

1. The floor was severely damaged when the plane hit. This would have shortened the time it would have withstood the fire.

2. The fireproofing was knocked off of some spots as a result of the impact, which would have shortened the time it would have withstood the fire.

I also do not understand exactly how much this proves. The report states that pancaking was not possible, but the buildings did not collapse as a RESULT of a pancake scenario. The buildings initially failed when the sagging trusses (which you can see sagging in the photos of the test in that report) compromised the strength of the outer skeleton. This simply resulted in the top section of the building falling and crushing the remaining part. Pancaking did not really occur. So I don't even see how this is that relevant.

@ Tristan

Agreed.

Quote from wsinda :

9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The ... h Movement in Perspective in eSkeptic. It won't convince conspirationists at all, but to me it looks well-researched.

Me likey!

www.dell.com

Really, I guess, the best option if you really don't want to build it yourself. Look at their XPS Desktop systems.

Looked up that article after hearing the following on Comedy Central:

Voiceover: "AND NOW, A DAILY SHOW NEWS BREAK!"

John Stewart: "The latest news to come out of the Middle East: PENIS THEFT! ... PENIS THEFT!"

Lol. Reading the article is HILARIOUS. I recommend everyone read the whole thing.

Quote from Technique :

I think we take security for granted. To do something as elaborate as this would require major effort, but some of these facilities which may appear very secure on the outside are actually a joke if you really had intentions of doing damage.

Security in most parts of the United States, is more for appearances, than for actual safety. That is to say, it's only to make people feel safe. My dad has, on multiple occasions, signed in to giant corporation's buildings in NYC (supposedly some of the most secure ones) using names like Osama Bin Laden, or Carlos the Jackal...

...it really is a joke. It's just a joke that fools most people. Anyone who really wanted to do something, could.

I know LFS cuts the ignition on the car after a specified time (30 sec or 1 min or something) but I just noticed today that this occurs even when you specifically pause the game. So you sit back down, push the throttle, turn the steering wheel to the position it was in, and press pause again, expecting to pick up where you left off, only to have your car slow down. Took me a minute to realize what it was. I thought I'd uncovered some crazy issue with the clutch or something. This auto-off feature should not happen when the game is paused, only when the vehicle is left idling.

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

0Oo()

D

And the new Russian-roulette track, 8

1

Quote from SamH :

The Pentagon is a much easier target to identify from an aircraft, and ranks highly on any terrorist's list of buildings-worth-bonus-points.

Yeah, you'd think they'd make the most important national defense/strategic military deployment building in the US a little bit more obscure...

...I mean, they insist on camouflaging all their planes, trucks, Hummers, people... and yet they built one of the most unique and recognizable buildings in Washington to coordinate it all.

Guess they never expected the enemy to make it all the way stateside at the time...

I wouldn't mind being able to hear each tire making it's own noise...

...or being able to hear when someone hits my car from whichever direction they might come...

...there's many more good applications to 5.1 than just engine noise from other cars IMO. But what do I know? I've never raced in real life - so that might all be useless.