As I understand it, the car simply won't run with engine tweaks or third-party wheels and tires. The first is understandable, because it may damage the engine. The second is not understandable, and looks like monopolizing the upgrades/replacements market. That is illegal -- the same has been attempted by Lexmark (inkjet cartridges) and by Nokia (batteries for mobile phones) iirc.

The speed limit probably only applies when the GPS says when you are on a track. In itself that's sensible, because you may be only driving near the track (to watch the race); GPS is not that precise. But it does create a loophole: you can thrash the car quite badly but stay below 180 km/h. Even worse, an owner who doesn't want to pay the $1000 is tempted to go for a blast on a public road. (Street race, anyone?)

If Nissan is really concerned about warranty claims, they should let the car log abusive driving, like excessive G forces and high revs. They could even put a warning on the driver's display if he is driving wildly ("Easy, son. Three more minutes like this and your warranty is void.")

Bob Smith's VHPA analyser can calculate the theoretical acceleration times, and possibly also the top speed.

It's a mystery to me why you want to know the top speed. You can maximize top speed by setting zero wing and toe, max tyre pressure and camber, etc. But the car's handling will be awful, and so will your laptimes. Even tweaking the gear ratios for that last 0.1 km/h is useless, because you will never reach that speed on the track, and it may lose a lot of time in the corners.

Quote from Glenn67 :

So in summary, eat less red meat, processed foods, do regular excercise and increase your intake of antioxides.

That will only increase the odds of dying from other causes. The sum is still 1.

WARNING: Healthy food, sports and careful driving will INCREASE your relative chances of DYING from suicide, terrorism and shark bites!!

It's not bothering me, because I have sigs and avatars switched off. Anything that helps to raise the signal/noise ratio.

Quote from Racer Y :

I mean I don't believe that we came from sea sludge to space age as basically dumb luck

That's because evolution isn't just "dumb luck". It's dumb luck plus selection of the best.

Consider this experiment: You are given 1000 dice, and the task of throwing 1000 sixes. Take as many throws as you need. That would mean you'll go on throwing dice until the end of your days... Unless you can lay the sixes that you get aside, and continue with the other dice. Then it's a piece of cake, ready within an hour. That's the difference between randomness with and without selection.

Seven seconds slower than AI is a lot. Better set the AI level to low or medium. When you can beat them, switch to high.

Some tips for going online:

- Choose one car & track combo and practice well on that. When you know how to drive decent laptimes, you can start learning other tracks. (The CTRA servers are very good, but they have track rotation, which is a disadvantage for newbies.) The combo should be popular, so that when you go online, you will find a server and people to race against.

- If you're not sure your laptime is acceptable, then join a server and just spectate. After watching a few races you know if you can keep up with the slower guys.

- If you are one of the slowest in the pack, then drive the car to the side of the track when the race starts. Let everyone pass, then go after them. (If you drive consistently and avoid the crashes, you have a good chance of finishing mid-field or better. )

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior

The most fascinating of these is the Bonobo who is fully bisexual and is, together with the Chimpanzee, the closest relative of humans.

Last edited by wsinda, Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:36. Reason : typo

Quote from tristancliffe :

I honestly wish I'd been born in the early 20th century. We knew what work was. We knew what graft was. We knew what fear and death was. We knew what suffering was. The world was an exciting, changing place. People valued each other more (because the liklihood of war meant they might not be around for much longer). Car were driven by men in their Sunday best, and the ones that raced were fearsomely quick, but also fearsomely dangerous... Women dressed nicely. Rich men stayed in dinner for an extra half hour to discuss politics, finances and smoke cigars. Poorer men got on with life, and treated everyone, rich or poor, old or young with respect.

Go Tristan, Go! It's never too early to become a grumpy old man.

Seems like you missed out some of life's best experiences:
- Being cannon fodder in Flanders.
- Having over 10 brothers and sisters, many of whom would live to their twenties.
- Contracting malaria in the colonies, or tuberculosis and pneumonia at home.
- Being bullied and downtrodden at the factory. And frequently fired, too.
- Seeing a car drive by.

Those were the days.

Quote :

What we need is a good world war and a huge global recession to bring back some values.

Hold on, Uncle Sam is working hard on it. (Not sure about the "values" part, tho.)

Quote from JTbo :

It is ok as long as I don't have to see or hear

Advice: buy a blindfold and earplugs. You're gonna need them.

Good story to illustrate. A mom let her 9-year-old son ride the New York City subway alone, because he really wants to.

Quote :

Long story short: My son got home, ecstatic with independence.

Reaction from others:

Quote :

Half the people I've told this episode to now want to turn me in for child abuse. As if keeping kids under lock and key and helmet and cell phone and nanny and surveillance is the right way to rear kids. It's not. It's debilitating -- for us and for them.

AFAIK the Mormons and the Muslims don't allow polyandry (= 1 wife, multiple husbands).
Or polygynandry (= one big loving family; far out, man! :hippy.

As long they don't wanna hear about that, they should shut up about polygyny.

Quote from hrtburnout :

Islam polygamy is simple their old cultural habits, legalised and justified by their made-up religion.

... whereas monogamy isn't just a cultural habit but is ordained by our religion, which is not made up but is rock-solid, scientifically ...
Oh, never mind.

Last edited by wsinda, Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:31.

I never visit the forum. EVER.

JK, of course, but I expect that forum whores will be overrepresented in this poll.

Quote from pinoykid13 :

If God controlled us 100%, every1 would go crazy.

You may want to reconsider that statement. You imply that God wants us to go nuts.

Quote from David33 :

No; I don't equate them. However, I do recognize that religion may be a source of morality, so that religious education may be an example of moral education.

Religious education is a package deal: morality (= rules for your relations with other humans), plus the supernatural stuff (= rules for your relations with a deity). You can teach kids the former without touching the latter, but religions don't want to treat them separately. That forced package deal is what I find objectionable.

Quote :

As I tried to explain, children are a special case; they have no ability to choose their beliefs, until they have some beliefs to inform the choice.

I'm not sure if children need help in developing that ability. In any case, I'm pretty sure that it isn't helping them if the first belief you instill in them is the notion that all other beliefs are vile heresies that will send them straight to hell.

Quote :

Also, there is of course a difference between asking religious people to do something, and forcibly compelling them to do it.

... just like there is a difference between asking your kids to believe something, and forcibly compelling them to do so.

Quote from somasleep :

I know enough about science to know that it is descriptive and not perscriptive. It describes how nature works not why. Why is the domain of metaphysics and religion.

Quote from flymike91 :

Shotglass do you truly feel that science can explain our purpose on earth? X+Y=Man's ultimate goal in the universe?

You are both making a bold assumption: that there is a reason and goal for the universe and for human existence.

Then you argue that because there is an intention (which you have just postulated), there must be someone who has that intention, and that someone can only be God. A fine example of circular reasoning.

Quote :

It is assumed that the bible was written by people that were above any twisted view of morality. No commandment says "love thy neighbor, except that one"

Then it is also assumed that the chapter about Jericho got in the bible by accident, together with all the other bloodshed. And AFAIK the sixth commandment is about not killing your fellow tribesmen -- slaying foreigners was accepted practice.

Quote from David33 :

So, governmental suppression of religion is not something that may or may not "lead to violence;" it is violence

Strange that you call it suppression of religion. If people have a religion that tells them to force their beliefs upon others, should that be allowed? Does freedom of religion mean that you are even free to violate the freedom of others?

Quote :

Somebody has to, I daresay. Children are a peculiar consideration. They begin life, seeming to have their base instincts, but not wisdom or moral judgement; these are things that they have to learn.

You seem to equate morality with religion. I say that the two can be dealt with separately. Atheist parents can teach their children morals without invoking a deity. So can teachers -- at least, the ones at non-religious schools. And finallly, the law also provides guidelines for people's behaviour, not based on any supreme being.

(What's also nice about the law is that the price for misbehaving is spending time in jail, free from torture, instead of being eternally subjected to excruciating pain.)

Quote :

However, I would certainly reject any proposition that, if a particular belief is arguably less credible, or less useful, than such beliefs as may be held by a majority of the community.

Neither I nor anybody in this thread has said such a thing. What does seem reasonable IMHO is to ask that religious people do unto others what has been done unto them: granting freedom to choose one's beliefs. And those "others" includes kids.

(In case you might wonder: I'm an atheist, but I do not force my children to become atheists. For instance, when they ask me what Easter is all about, I tell them "Christians believe such-and-such, but I don't." I won't tell them that the story about Jesus dying for our sins is hogwash, which is basically what I believe. My kids should form their own opinion.)

Quote :

So, the question becomes: what are the best axioms? I cannot provide an authoritative answer, and I don't expect anyone else to do so, either. I can only suppose that we are likely to do best, by acknowledging that it is the nature of each person to think for himself, and perhaps to communicate his ideas, and we can argue about them, and hopefully get some useful agreement, without anybody's trying to forcibly coerce compliance with his (or their) particular ideas - especially including, by the agency of government.

Agreed.

Quote from David33 :

John Stuart Mill argued something like this (governmental suppression of social pressures), in On Liberty, but it's a bad idea; it basically proposes violence in defense against persuasion.

I don't see how it can lead to violence. Anyway, the point I tried to make is that freedom of religion as it is currently shaped is insufficient. Sure, everybody is free to choose and practice his religion, but there are two exceptions. Both are about believers who deny others the freedom that they enjoy themselves.

One is children. Why are parents allowed to force their own beliefs upon their kids, who are unable to make an informed decision? Most folks in the Western world get the shivers from images of Korean kids being taught to worship Kim Il Sung (and from similar stuff from Stalin's USSR). It's brainwashing, right? Well, I get the same idea when thinking about Sunday schools.

The other is people who want to leave their creed. Some communities, like Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientology exert enormous pressure on their members to stay. And some Muslims still think that those who leave the faith should be put to death.

It's these two kinds of pressures that I'd like to see outlawed. They aren't, hence my assertion that religions are favoured. I wasn't thinking of tax exemptions, but of psychological abuse.

Quote :

I would add that, in the "Moment of Clarity" thread, I alluded to Godel's proof that axioms are inevitably necessary as a precondition for reasoning.

You were misrepresenting Gödel's work. You said:

Quote :

Godel proved that no system of reasoning, can be internally sufficient; it always requires some presumed axioms as a basis from which one reasons; and reliance upon reason, therefore requires faith in those axioms.

Gödel's main theorem states that no axiomatic system can be both complete and consistent. He did not prove that you need axioms. An axiomatic system must have them, otherwise it will not produce any theorems, and you don't need a genius like Gödel to prove that.

And an axiom does not require faith. It is true because it is an axiom. Mathematicians start from axioms and, together with an inference method, produce other propositions that can be proved to be true in that axiomatic system. If they don't like the axioms or the results that they produce, they are free to choose another set. They are even free to take another inference method. This has produced Non-Euclidean geometry and Intuitionism. But I digress.

Funny that mathematical logic should be drawn into the discussion. Gödel also proved that a system that claims to be complete must be inconstent. That should give Bible-bashers some food for thought. Furthermore, the "axioms" of the Christian faith carry enormous problems when logic is applied to them: the problem of evil, omnipotence and omniscience, etc., all crumble under the cool eye of logic. (But inside the human mind, logic is powerless against the forces of instinct and emotion.)

Quote from J.B. :

Do you mean something like illusion of free will? Or do you mean that the "immortal soul" or whatever you want to call it is in fact a physical entity?

I certainly don't mean the latter: I'm an atheist, so I don't think there is anything like an immortal soul.

As to free will being an illusion: all people feel they have free will, and they generally consider themselves responsible for their actions. If this is an illusion, then it's a damn good one. So good, in fact, that human perception can't distinguish it from real free will. (That is, if you can define such a thing as "real" free will. The concept is messy, IMHO.)

In short: I think I have free will, you think I have free will, and society thinks so too. Therefore, for all practical purposes, free will exists.

Quote from Hankstar :

Understandably though, if your parents are devout and wholeheartedly believe you'll go to hell if you're not "saved" like they are, they'll no doubt want to raise you according to their their faith.

Why?? Can't they be confident that their kid will choose the faith by itself when it grows up, and thus save its soul? If they're so certain that it's the One True Faith...

Quote from Hankstar :

If god exists in the way people describe, it's certainly not for a lack of power or ability that he doesn't settle the confusion. Which suggests he's letting everyone argue and fight and die over their differences and has been doing so for thousands of years.

That's the problem of evil, in one of its many shapes.

Quote from somasleep :

If there is no God then nothing you do really matters in the end. If you choose to kill 50 million people or help 50 million people it doesn't really matter because in the end everything turns out the same way.

Suppose that were true, and your argument was correct (I don't think it is, BTW). If it is a fact that nothing really matters, what's the problem with that? You may not like the fact, even feel disgusted, betrayed, etc. But would your dislike of the fact make it less true?

Quote from SamH :

The question of whether or not there is a god is exactly that. It's a rational question and can either be answered or cannot be answered.

I think the question is primarily a social question, not a rational one. There are very few communities where an individual can ponder the question freely, without any social pressure. For most people, the question "Is there is a god?" translates to "Who are you with?"

Mankind is a social animal. Babies are born with an absolute loyalty to their parents (even if those parents are abusive). They have to: it's a mechanism that is necessary for survival. Later in life, the loyalty is expanded to tribe, clan or nation. And up to this day, religion has been part of the package. To be in the group, to be deemed a good citizen, you must subscribe to the faith. Openly losing your religion equalled leaving the community, or even betrayal.

Because sticking with your group is such a powerful instinct, it is not effective to treat the existence of a god as a rational question, like Dawkins, Harris, etc. do. If it were purely rational, nonbelievers would win the debate hands down. But most believers won't be swayed by rational arguments, because their instinct tells them otherwise. If the scientific facts don't agree with the faith, humans tend to ignore the facts.

I do agree with Dawkins that our rules and laws favour religions, not only in the US but also in Europe. In a truly "religion-neutral" society, all pressures surrounding faith should be outlawed. Each could choose their own beliefs, provided that they're old enough to have good judgment. Children under 18 should be free from religious education.

(Not sure if this is a bug or intentional behaviour, but I'll report it anyway.)

The MRT and the FBM are the only single-seaters that you can't flatshift. You need to lift the throttle while shifting up.

However, when studying a WR hotlap for the MRT I noticed that the driver doesn't lift the throttle, but momentarily presses the clutch. Apparently, the fastest way to upshift is: (1) press shift-up lever, (2) press and release clutch, (3) release shift lever. You can keep your right foot on the floor all the time.

This way of driving is a bit hard on the clutch, but you still have time to do a good hotlap until the clutch is fried.

Is this a realistic way of driving, made possible by the low power of the MRT's engine? Or can this be called a cheat?
(In the WR's for the FBM they do lift the throttle.)

Quote from duke_toaster :

Omnipotence cannot happen, anyway.

Hah, a Supreme Being ain't much if it can be curbed by the logic of mere mortals.

Quote from Dyllaann :

God is infinite so he wasnt created

If that is true, then God can not create an infinite entity. Omnipotence has its limits, I guess.

Quote from SamH :

Only feeble people can be TOLD what to believe. Don't be feeble.

The problem is that they START telling people what to believe when they ARE feeble: in early childhood.

Quote :

Never stop wondering. Never stop questioning.

Why?
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Wikipedia has a good introduction to arguments for the existence of God (and to arguments against his existence).

I wouldn't call them proofs, because when you look closely, all those "proofs" are either based on circular reasoning or on a weird definition of god.

Quote from LFSn00b :

This still does puzzle me too. If God put everything moving, then who put him moving?

Yes, that is the objection from the nonbelievers: the believers "explain" the cosmos with god's design, but that only works if god himself doesn't need any explanation. It is forbidden to ask "Who created god?"

Last edited by wsinda, Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:52.

Quote from somasleep :

You can deny the existence of free will but then I would reply to you as Pinocchio's friend replied, "If what you say is true then what is the point of this conversation?"

The point is that the puppetmaster and his audience can have some philosophical fun on a rainy afternoon.

(BTW, according to what law does a conversation between puppets need to have "a point"? The puppets are making a bold assumption here. Seems like their wooden minds try to find a meaning behind everything.)

Quote from J.B. :

So if free will doesn't need super natural power then how exactly does it mesh with physics?

According to Descartes, mind and matter interact in the Pineal gland. But IMHO that was only an attempt to shoehorn the Christian concept of the soul into the observable, physical reality.

Free will doesn't "mesh with physics", it is physics. It's somewhere in that immensely complex structure that is our brain. You won't find free will by prying open the skull and inspecting the neurons, because there are many levels of abstraction in between. (Like there would be when talking about emotions, memories, and character traits.)