Actually you'd be reading the book of Romans. I think the 'interpretation' is pretty straightforward on that one.
Exactly how does a retributive form of justice make a civilisation barbaric? I'm not talking about torture or abuse, just imprisonment and/or execution. I don't see anything barbaric about providing basic food and shelter to a criminal.
Ah. I see we've dropped into the realm of personal abuse. Nice. It's especially refreshing to find moderators encouraging this behaviour.
Or you could believe that the state has a God-given right to punish criminals, using the death penalty if the crime is deemed severe enough.
To me punishment is about retribution, not rehabilitation. Try to rehabilitate criminals if you like, but it shouldn't come at the expense of punishing them for their wrongdoing. If their wrongdoing is severe enough, execute them.
Why is this fact relevant? Shame on the other seven, I say!
To those claiming that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent...there are studies which show that the death penalty does reduce the murder rate and there are studies which show that it doesn't. The nature of the problem means that it is almost impossible to prove one way or the other. Any claims that the death penalty does not act as an effective deterrent are subjective claims only.
I think it's a perfectly valid way of punishing those who have committed serious crimes.
From what I understand the team has some scheme by which the drivers take it in turns to do one extra fuel burn lap during Q3 (thus giving them an advantage when it comes to their flying lap) and this time it was Alonso's turn. There was nothing for Hamilton to judge. If you look at the start of Q3 Hamilton had plenty of time in T1 and T2 to let Alonso through without having to let Raikkonen through. Of course it would have compromised Hamilton's strategy, but that's part of being in a team.
The fact of the matter seems to be that none of this would have happened had Hamilton stuck to the team plan and Alonso's been punished for it.
I don't understand what you mean...
Well done to BlueFlame for playing the racism card. No, it's nothing to do with his race. I couldn't care less what colour he is, it's his attitude that annoys me and causes me to dislike him. His comments regarding the 'monkeys at the back' showed complete disregard for those drivers who work just as hard as he does but in inferior cars and for none of the reward.
Here's a quotation from Hamilton on the ITV website:
Hamilton obviously thinks that 'standing for what you believe in' (which, at that point, seemed to be screwing Alonso so Hamilton could take pole) is more important than integrity and honouring agreements. On that point I fundamentally disagree with him and I feel that it reflects very badly on his personality.
To those who claim that racing drivers need arrogance to be successful, look at Mika Hakkinen and Damon Hill as two recent world champions who didn't seem to need this 'self-belief', or whichever other synonym for arrogance you want to use.
I will confess to one irrational reason for my dislike of Hamilton. It's not his fault (though he doesn't seem to have done anything to stop them) but ITV's constant obsession over Hamilton really bugs me.
Here's a quotation from Hamilton on the ITV website:
Hamilton obviously thinks that 'standing for what you believe in' (which, at that point, seemed to be screwing Alonso so Hamilton could take pole) is more important than integrity and honouring agreements. On that point I fundamentally disagree with him and I feel that it reflects very badly on his personality.
To those who claim that racing drivers need arrogance to be successful, look at Mika Hakkinen and Damon Hill as two recent world champions who didn't seem to need this 'self-belief', or whichever other synonym for arrogance you want to use.
I will confess to one irrational reason for my dislike of Hamilton. It's not his fault (though he doesn't seem to have done anything to stop them) but ITV's constant obsession over Hamilton really bugs me.
I think both sides admitted that there had been very strong words between Hamilton and Dennis, and Hamilton admitted that Dennis was furious with him after qualifying. I don't see any reason that exchange couldn't have taken place.
F1 is a team sport and to disobey team orders is unnacceptable. It is a matter of principle to me that if you sign a contract (which almost certainly included a clause to obey team instructions) then you should honour the contract. If you don't like it you should leave. Hamilton has lost what little respect I have for him.
Why does his nationality matter? I've not supported a British driver since Damon Hill.
Disobeying direct team orders because he thought he knew better is pretty arrogant. If he keeps it up, it's grounds for firing him, too.
It's been reported on the ITV website:
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=40287
This race has shown Lewis to be an arrogant, self-serving idiot. I hope the team fires him.
The whole thing stinks. If what Norbert Haug says is true then Fernando Alonso has been punished for Lewis Hamilton's arrogant disobedience of team instructions.
I've just seen the footage of the start of Q3 on ITV and Raikkonen was nowhere near through turns 1 and 2.
Sounds like it's Hamilton who needs to be given a talking to.
I've just seen the footage of the start of Q3 on ITV and Raikkonen was nowhere near through turns 1 and 2.
Sounds like it's Hamilton who needs to be given a talking to.
I don't understand all this. It seems that the FIA have reviewed the team radio recordings and decided that the explanation offered by Ron Dennis wasn't accurate.
Why would Dennis lie about what happened when he knows the FIA have access to the radio communications? If it really was Alonso holding Lewis up deliberately, why did Dennis move the blame completely onto Hamilton?
If the timings posted by jamvib earlier are true then Hamilton probably wouln't have had time to start a new lap anyway, even if Alonso had left the pit as soon as the lollipop moved.
I accept that it's possible Alonso did this on purpose but it seems pretty unlikely that he would have got the timing so perfect if that's the case. The story put forward by Dennis seems to make sense, but the FIA didn't accept it. Either Dennis is a liar (which I very much doubt) or the FIA are deliberately screwing Alonso and McLaren.
EDIT: Just read the FIA statement...now I'm even more confused! It's starting to sound like Alonso may have held up Hamilton unneccessarily, in which case his penalty is deserved. There really would be no point in asking if the right set of tyres had been fitted at that stage in the session unless you wanted an excuse for sitting in the pits. What I really dont understand is that the FIA are penalising McLaren for impeding themselves!
Why would Dennis lie about what happened when he knows the FIA have access to the radio communications? If it really was Alonso holding Lewis up deliberately, why did Dennis move the blame completely onto Hamilton?
If the timings posted by jamvib earlier are true then Hamilton probably wouln't have had time to start a new lap anyway, even if Alonso had left the pit as soon as the lollipop moved.
I accept that it's possible Alonso did this on purpose but it seems pretty unlikely that he would have got the timing so perfect if that's the case. The story put forward by Dennis seems to make sense, but the FIA didn't accept it. Either Dennis is a liar (which I very much doubt) or the FIA are deliberately screwing Alonso and McLaren.
EDIT: Just read the FIA statement...now I'm even more confused! It's starting to sound like Alonso may have held up Hamilton unneccessarily, in which case his penalty is deserved. There really would be no point in asking if the right set of tyres had been fitted at that stage in the session unless you wanted an excuse for sitting in the pits. What I really dont understand is that the FIA are penalising McLaren for impeding themselves!
Last edited by StewartFisher, .
Nor am I. I'll be very interested to read the FIA's statement when it's released.
Oh, how the tables have turned 
I must admit I had my suspicions that Alonso had blocked Hamilton but I thought I should wait for a statement from McLaren.
Most people here, it seems, went off on one before they knew the facts. Several times I've seen people write that the mechanics were frantically waving at Alonso to leave the pits. I never saw any of that. If you take Hamilton out of the equation, Alonso's release from his final stop was timed to perfection. He had exactly the right length of time needed to start his next flying lap.
It seems that McLaren decided to stick with the original plan and let Lewis suffer from his blatant disobedience of team orders on the first lap of the session.
Of course, I don't expect that any of the Alonso abusers/Hamilton lovers will retract their statements. This announcement from McLaren is probably part of some big cover-up, etc...
I must admit I had my suspicions that Alonso had blocked Hamilton but I thought I should wait for a statement from McLaren.Most people here, it seems, went off on one before they knew the facts. Several times I've seen people write that the mechanics were frantically waving at Alonso to leave the pits. I never saw any of that. If you take Hamilton out of the equation, Alonso's release from his final stop was timed to perfection. He had exactly the right length of time needed to start his next flying lap.
It seems that McLaren decided to stick with the original plan and let Lewis suffer from his blatant disobedience of team orders on the first lap of the session.
Of course, I don't expect that any of the Alonso abusers/Hamilton lovers will retract their statements. This announcement from McLaren is probably part of some big cover-up, etc...
Yes, but that's a result of downforce
If the cars were generating lift, the manhole covers would simply be pushed harder into their holes.The lift forces should scale with v^2 the same as the drag...sounds simple! I think the problem with proper modelling of lift is that the centre of pressure (i.e. the point at which the lift force acts on the car) moves up and down along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle as the speed changes.
I would imagine that the centre of pressure would move rearwards as the speed increases for a car like the FZ5 but that for the XFG it would remain relatively constant. My reasoning for this is that the aerodynamics over the front half of the car (where the boundary layers are almost certainly attached) should be the same over quite a wide range of speeds. However, over the rear bodywork of a car the point at which the boundary layer separates from the bodywork (creating the wake behind the car) will move in accordance with the pressure distribution (which varies with speed). For a car like the XFG with a sharp corner between the roofline and the rear windscreen the separation point is likely to be found at or near this corner. However the FZ5, with its gently sloping rear bodywork, is more likely to exhibit some movement of the separation point and hence a change in the location of the centre of pressure.
If you hear a driver talking about the aerodynamic balance of his car not feeling right it can be a problem with the centre of pressure shifting around at various speeds, so it is an important effect.
So defending themselves against a public attack from Ferrari is damaging their credibility? The recent letters from Ferrari were a disgrace. They offered no further evidence or information and simply seemed to be a reaction to the FIA not supporting the Ferrari version of events.
At what point in the statement did Ron Dennis admit to knowing the contents of the dossier?
Ron Dennis' and McLaren's statements about the issue have been much more logical than Ferrari's mad ranting. What Dennis said in the statement today pretty much confirms my view, which is that Stepney was disaffected and was intending to leave Ferrari (hence the 'whistle-blowing') and that he and Coughlan intended to use the documents elsewhere.
It's often not wise to comment on these things before any sort of hearing or enquiry into the matter. McLaren were quite right to limit statements to a denial of any wrongdoing before the hearing last week.
I've just found this letter from Ron Dennis to the FIA and Ferrari on the McLaren website:
http://www.mclaren.co.uk/lates ... to%20Luigi%20Macaluso.pdf
It's an interesting read, and one which I believe completely.
Well done muhaa, it sounds like you've found something significant that the dev's should look at.
Ignore Tristan. For some reason he feels the need to abuse those whom he doesn't feel are 'worthy' of holding an opinion. It's a real shame because when he's not spouting bile he has some interesting things to say.
However, your posts are quite difficult to read. Is it really too much to ask that you write in properly punctuated sentences?
Ignore Tristan. For some reason he feels the need to abuse those whom he doesn't feel are 'worthy' of holding an opinion. It's a real shame because when he's not spouting bile he has some interesting things to say.
However, your posts are quite difficult to read. Is it really too much to ask that you write in properly punctuated sentences?
By the same logic, was the Ferrari employee who gave Coughlan the documents also acting in behalf of the whole Ferrari team? If so, I don't see what Ferrari are moaning about. They gave the documents to McLaren!
How is engine performance 'user preference'? More power = good. Maybe some people would prefer a more 'driveable' engine than the most powerful available but over time I think you'll see one engine setup dominating.
The trouble is that as soon as one person 'bothers doing it' everyone will copy those settings.
First of all, it's "wouldn't have gained something"!
Getting back on topic, what do you propose McLaren gained from this? All we know is that the documents were found at Mike Coughlan's house and that his wife photocopied them at a copy shop. Nothing has been said about the documents being made known to McLaren. For all we know, Coughlan might never even have read them. Maybe he sent his missus so that he avoided all contact with the documents?
We know so little about all of this. The FIA received a sworn declaration from Coughlan regarding his acquisition of the documents and heard evidence from McLaren in the session yesterday. They decided that McLaren hadn't gained anything as a result of Mike Coughlan having the documents in his house.
After all this, many people claim that the FIA is biased, that they're not being fair, etc... based on what they've read in the papers. What nonsense!
In F1 the weight of the driver is included in the minimum vehicle weight. The only advantage would be that Sato could put more ballast in the floor of the car to lower his car's CoG relative to Button's.
Given the FIA's history, I admire your confidence...
Interesting stuff! I'd not seen those diagrams before. I was confused because I thought you were trying to calculate the roll centre of the vehicle using only the instantaneous centre of one wheel, which seemed unlikely. Now that I've seen the diagrams it makes sense!
You're forgetting that those pictures were probably taken using a digital camera, which is where the bloom (glare, as you called it) comes from. Our eyes are much better at dealing with bright lights than digital cameras. I'd rather have LFS model my eye than my digital camera CCD.
HDR is great. Bloom is not.
Winkelhock only led the race because the Spyker team took a chance from the back of the grid and the rain came at the right moment. There's no miracle involved, just a punt on the weather which no other team could risk. If you're at the back you have nothing to lose.
The man of the race for me was Alonso. He stayed on track during the rain, wasn't pressured into a mistake during Raikkonen's brief charge and he hunted down Massa brilliantly at the end. It's been a long time since we've seen a passing move for the race lead like that, and it was glorious to watch.
The man of the race for me was Alonso. He stayed on track during the rain, wasn't pressured into a mistake during Raikkonen's brief charge and he hunted down Massa brilliantly at the end. It's been a long time since we've seen a passing move for the race lead like that, and it was glorious to watch.
SpeedyPro is mostly correct. Instantaneous centres can only be defined for bodies having angular velocity. If there is no angular velocity, the instantaneous centre is at infinity.
If you want to work out the roll centre of the vehicle, it seems like you're going about it the wrong way. The instantaneous centres of the wheels probably won't tell you much about how the chassis is moving. Try drawing your rigid body diagrams to include the chassis.
If you want to work out the roll centre of the vehicle, it seems like you're going about it the wrong way. The instantaneous centres of the wheels probably won't tell you much about how the chassis is moving. Try drawing your rigid body diagrams to include the chassis.
The fibreglass lagging would probably slow the players down...
How you approach your interview depends entirely on the type of company you're going for. My company is a small place (only about 10 of us in my office) so the directors need to know that they're actually going to enjoy working with someone for 8 hours a day. Obviously technical skills are required but in a small place personalities are important too.
If it's some huge multinational company then they probably want someone who is 'career focused' or 'customer oriented' or some other such nonsense.
Last edited by StewartFisher, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG