VGA drivers perhaps? Other apps that are using the GPU in accelerated mode running at the same time? I've encountered similar in various gpu-accelerated apps when running certain java apps in the background. Also video quality settings enforced in a profile might cause it.
Hardly surprising considering the lack of anything resembling modern (or even outdated really) safety measures, reasonable overtaking room on the track and driving skills involved (give it up, Даскалов! Double irony for the linguistically inclined: his last name's greek origin [daskalos] means "teacher").
Odd, I thought NASCAR was the thing Americans would only argue about in private inter-American discussions.
Not being the one in the cockpit I can't really see the big deal about the blown tyre rupturing the brake line unless it's a common occurrence and from what I gather it isn't. So unless there are stats to back it up there's no point in blaming the design. By the way, are they still called cars of tomorrow?
The oversimplification of "they rioted because they were poor" is indeed not adequate. They are indeed poor, but not in pecuniary terms. I'd say they are poor in values.
The problem is not that they get money or don't get money. The problem is the value they themselves assign to this money. Society around them regards the specific money as "reward" and "punishment" at the same time.
Conclusively, I say they are the expected by-product of the society they exist in - a society which judges everything in terms of materialistic gain and considers state-given benefits only in terms of the money given and not the actual social benefit from a well organized programme with a goal in mind. For decades now they've been conditioned to this state of mind so it's no surprise they'd go for it.
Woah, Tex, that's quite a chip you got on your shoulder there. How you managed to take this personally to such an extent that you attribute words to me which I didn't write is beyond me. Once more: I got nothing against you.
I gave several current era examples of why I believe that the statement "most people become rich not by keeping others down, but by expanding on an idea that makes people's lives better" is not true - if you want more, history books are full of them. I then stated that some of your arguments were not clear enough or even arguments at all and you cleared it up by invoked as an argument the "limits of human nature" in regards to wrongdoings perpetrated on people's expense for profit to which I pointed out that it contradicts the previous statements regarding personal responsibility as it provides a sizable loophole for shedding responsibility.
So where in the above did I personally attack you and brand you an idiot? All I see is a structured progression of a debate, not a personal confrontation. But if I am mistaken and this is a personal confrontation then please by all means let me know and let's not waste our time any longer.
Incorrect. I criticize your views as they are and I criticize you for your lack of arguments. I didn't criticize you for your views. You're once more doing the "if you aren't in agreement with me, you are against me" trick.
I didn't have to, nor do I have to. I only came in the thread to point out why a romantic statement you made was not so true. Why must everything and everyone be quantified and labelled?
The cover-all excuse of blaming "the limits of human nature" can be used for such a wide variety of things and in most cases it directly contradicts the personal responsibility credo. So, make your mind up - what's it going to be: 100% personal responsibility or some unknown limit of human nature?
Divisions - not diversions. Right vs left, liberal vs conservative. Those are divisions. All of them artificial and ultimately inconsequential.
I did not say your ideology is rigid - it might very well be, but I am not examining that. I said that you maintain a rigid belief in the fact that it is good while all other else is not.
See - again you go for the "if you aren't with me, you are against me" card.
I did not say you "is part of an ideology that has caused people" - I said that your mentality (!= ideology) is such that empowers the State. Polarization of a society simply makes it weaker and easier to manipulate. The fact that you immediately try to quantify what I write into a given ideology (see "your ideology of powerlessness") which you inadvertently created in your mind as an opposing one to your own proves that you have such a mentality.
Again generalized assumptions: you assume I am of some specific ideology you might or might not have in mind and then bait it with a term like "powerlessness" implying that you represent an alternate powerful ideology. Again the black & white/"you are either with us or against us" mentality.
See, in my opinion it's the above mentality that has empowered the State so much to be as the idiotic cliche/catchphrase has it a "nanny state". People, like your online persona (judging solely from the stuff you have written), who are too blinkered to see beyond divisions and artificial social and ideological ruts, who play into the game of maintaining a rigid belief that their system is different from the other "oppressive" system or the other "corrupt" system.
In all probability it is possible and good on the people who've managed to do so in their knowledge if that's what they wanted. But "most people become rich not by keeping others down" still doesn't hold true as most people, historically, have become rich precisely by that practice. When the ultimate goal is profit then someone gets screwed.
Again with the same generalized self-help tape material. Despite what you might currently think you are not constructing logical arguments; you are just resorting to embellished rhetorics.
Focus. You are losing focus on your arguments and dwindling into some sort of self-help audio tape material.
My injunction to this thread was directed at this generalization:
Which simply does not hold true. The aforementioned example of South American water privatization is a good example of the extreme of this "expand on an idea". Not being an oracle, I can only use examples of things happened in the past. If you would like a current situation that's very similar and leading people into desperation read up on the problems west african coast nations are facing with the exploitation of their fishing grounds by fishing fleets of the developed world.
Again that's a black/white and very naive point of view. Corporations aren't evil or good. Corporations are just entities doing what they have to do to survive in the given ruleset: make profit. There are no ethics involved and every move made is judged by one question in the end: will it make profit? That's just how they operate - if they don't profit they die.
Again a naive point of view: it is not matter of punishment.
Therefore, on the basis that everyone can do it if they can no one should criticize the existing attempts? I think not.
Examples of countries where the privatization of water was done with profit in mind following a neoliberal economic model include Bolivia and Argentina - it didn't go that well. For example in Bolivia even the collection of rain water was considered illegal - so citizens couldn't even drink the water puddling on their roofs.
Lighten up, guys. Even if they are just here to advertise this, so what?
I've been meaning to check out x-motor racing for years now yet somehow never got around to it. Maybe it's time to take it for a spin and see what it's all about. Graphics-wise, from movies and screenshots that I've seen, it has some nice elements (real-time cockpit shadows and reflections) but the colours are a bit too saturated.
And directly connected to the funds of specific corporations "expanding on an idea" and doing so in a corrupt political environment with no control. The end result, which was my point, is the same: people became rich by putting other people down and with the aim of becoming rich, not making people's lives better which is what that other kid said earlier.
Like controlling water as a commodity, or genetic use restriction technology in grains, or the deep sea fishing industry, or coffee plantations all over the third world, or oil firms all around the world, or sweatshops in the Far East, etc - the list of exploitation just goes on and on. I think you just accept too many things in a black/white fashion and rather naively.
That'd be like not looting during a riot. Commendable yet appallingly un-British at the same time. The repercussions of such an action might even create a situation in life that not even Intrepid himself has personally experienced himself personally - himself.
As president of the committee for Good Reason Preservation I must urge you to refrain from such actions. Good Reasons and Perfectly Good Reasons are a work of art and as such should be cherished, not some petty excuse for the cancellation of pecuniary transactions. You can use NASCAR for those.