This is one of the right questions. People seem to forget the very important individual freedoms they'd sacrifice to live in Nazi Germany. Probably they believe those freedoms are worth nothing, until a friend or relative gets dragged away, never to be seen again.
But probably even then it could be a price worth paying, if things work. Who knows. For sure, these little losses are things that happen to people who thinks every means is good to a particular end and justify it without trying to understand a bit better what happened, and why, and how.
I've heard too many Laibach songs and read too many Orwell books and essays, not to mention the story of my family. I think those things made me understand that the question "how" and "why" are just as important as the question "what". Some people (just as Bernie) don't. As long as they're not in power, their loss.
Last edited by Albieg, .
My favourite answer is the one regarding Bosch. I think civilisation would come to an end if people like this girl ever get in power. Oh, wait, this is actually happening in Italy at the moment!
Nevermind, these people are only meant to be the pawns of some master, good for the bed of someone who's not me, and I don't think I'm losing anything at all.
Anyway there's no consolation in knowing that stupidity is universal and knows no nationality. Perhaps all these people should be herded and sent to a place where they can run their Idiocracy.
Nevermind, these people are only meant to be the pawns of some master, good for the bed of someone who's not me, and I don't think I'm losing anything at all.
Anyway there's no consolation in knowing that stupidity is universal and knows no nationality. Perhaps all these people should be herded and sent to a place where they can run their Idiocracy.
Powerboat racing.
Read: safety car, as here.
Q. Did the team tell you to give him his position back?
JT: At that moment, no. I called the team asked what was going on and the team said "Okay, stay there". Because the team has to go back to Charlie (Whiting) to see what is going on. I knew that I should have given the position back, but the rules say that if the car in front of you cannot keep a certain speed to follow the safety car or is in trouble, you can overtake that car.
Also, I can't watch BBC Media (apart from text) because they don't have worldwide transmission rights, so their media are for UK viewers only. So I repeat what someone else said before in this thread: people from outside UK can't watch or listen to BBC multimedia content about F1. If possible please provide another source because that one isn't accessible to all forum users outside of UK and I don't want to go looking for anon UK proxies just to watch a clip.
And this should excuse or justify McLaren even if they knew the truth?
No matter how you call it, I call it unsporting behaviour. Anything else sounds just like an apology, taken in a strictly ethimological meaning.
That's what they did.
And Trulli clearly stated he passed Hamilton because he was way more slow than the pace car, and didn't lie about it, and we know it.
And in the process they completely forgot about Trulli being unjustly sacked of his rightful 4th position, going by your logic. Homo Homini Lupus. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.
Or somewhere else. I read that stuff after formulating my opinion and thought it was funny, but not surprising. In this case the official truth is the one most believable in my opinion.
The fact that Hamilton did what he was told to is obvious, but it doesn't make it more honourable or, given the outcome and the presence of undeniable evidence that could eventually surface, less stupid. The blame goes to Ryan and Hamilton won't suffer for a poor decision, but his lack of public direct apologies especially to Trulli is revealing. Maybe Coulthard is right:
"There are always the drivers who see things only for themselves," the Red Bull advisor and TV pundit said. "Ayrton Senna was one, Michael Schumacher as well, and Lewis is probably made the same way."
Edit: DWB, I don't think you're in the position to judge what other people would have done... I live my life and I'm not Lewis Hamilton and I don't think winning is more important than everything, so cheating can be part of the game. Each one has his own heroes and I choose my knights in white shiny armour outside of the (un)sporting world. So yes, I can say I wouldn't have done it, but probably even if I had the talent and the occasion I would never have gotten to the pinnacle of motorsports for the same reason.
Last edited by Albieg, .
It's not necessarily so because I'm not taking for granted that McLaren told Ryan and Hamilton to lie to the stewards. Collating the available information, one could think that Ryan and Hamilton went to the meetings with the FIA officials unprepared and without a clear line of conduct established with the whole management.
Ryan could have pulled a stunt in the heat of the moment without other people at McLaren knowing, and Hamilton decided not to contradict him in front of FIA officials. That's the only justification I could find for Hamilton's remarks about being misled and for Ryan being sacked.
Otherwise I should adhere to the scapegoat conspiracy theory, but I have reason to believe that someone was really fuming at McLaren.
It's just an opinion, of course. But if you think about the little potential gain (from 4th to 3rd) and the real loss, both in points and reputation, one could hardly believe that McLaren in its entirety decided something so stupid and damaging.
For sure Hamilton didn't take the consequences in account when doing this. He participated, he got caught, he pays. It's a very simple logic, and you know, sometimes withholding information is a crime, or a breach of conduct.
And I didn't lose my head: I didn't tell anyone to STFU or that he doesn't know how the real world works. The people in this forum weren't born yesterday.
Edit: as for the fraud remark, do you know that people bet on F1?
And I didn't lose my head: I didn't tell anyone to STFU or that he doesn't know how the real world works. The people in this forum weren't born yesterday.
Edit: as for the fraud remark, do you know that people bet on F1?
You can follow your own advice then, since you're unwilling to follow your logic.
I understand this because I am in the exact situation in which I may be asked to do something illegal at my job position.
I already told my boss not to spread any more information about his intentions, and that includes asking me to do something I'm unwilling to do. He seems to have understood the message pretty well.
Does it jeopardize my job? Maybe. But I'm unwilling to jeoparize my freedom to defend someone for something I didn't do. Freedom isn't replaceable when you're in a jail, and neither a job is. There's a limit to loyalty, and the last time I checked the "We were only following orders" defense didn't work too well.
If you don't understand it, well, follow your own advice.
Exactly. You'll see with your eyes the difference, no one's going to play with your health. My glasses have been part of my life for decades: I was 12 when I started wearing them and I believed I didn't need them because I simply didn't know. Then, literally, I saw. Each time I have to renew my driving license I ask to skip the test without glasses because I already know I wouldn't pass it.
Still I could manage to drive without them and I did when I broke my glasses (although if I got caught I'd have been in trouble), but it isn't worth the strain. Now I keep another pair in my car.
The moral is, if you feel they improve the quality of your life, wear them. If you don't and you don't need them, don't. But I'd check my eyesight if I had the kind of deficit you describe since you seem to suffer from myopia. At least you'd know with a certain degree of certainty.
And as an admirer and regular user of Mark Russinovich's software in business environments I'm not faulting PE, which is one of the most stable and useful pieces of software I've ever used: otherwise, I wouldn't call it a professional tool. The lack of professionalism is somewhere else. I'm just appalled at discovering how far software companies can go to protect their intellectual property. I feel dispossessed, at the moment.
I use PE very regularly. I didn't encounter other troublesome SecuROM games before GTA IV, and since it's not running as it should I'd like to troubleshoot it with some professional tools. It may be a known problem but not to me, and this tells you one thing: my computer is running fine enough with other games. GTA IV isn't. If the game was fine, I wouldn't complain about such an issue. But it isn't fine.
I know video game scene as we know it is full of freeloaders who SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO SPEAK and kiddies who know nothing. But as I said I'm not exactly a noob and I'm a paying customer. I expected far more and far better for a simple reason: professionalism. This is a very big delusion from Rockstar.
Official forums: there's none, I know perfectly. I was being sarcastic and the lack of an official forum should just tell you how much they care. If I have to resort to Valve while not being a customer, it's a gigantic customer satisfaction failure, because I didn't buy anything from Valve. Yet their users solved some issues to the point the game is playable. There's enough reason to be bitter and to feel let down.
As for Microsoft being the cause of some problems, I don't really know and don't really think so. While troubleshooting I fired up my Task Manager replacement, that is Process Explorer written by Mark Russinovich, by Sysinternals (now owned by Microsoft), a legitimate piece of software used to investigate PC issues. It turns out SecuROM won't let me start the game if it detects Process Explorer running... and it even asks for a reboot! This is pure bull. They won't let me investigate possible troubles with a legitimate Microsoft software commonly and widely used for professional troubleshooting. This is insulting.
Rockstar botched it and they're giving close to no support. Everything is hearsay and there's no official statement on their support site. They might be working, but they're doing it without officially acknowledging problems except for "a small number" of users. That's a bunch of PR lies because the number of issues I have experienced tell me that many other people who lack expertise are in much bigger trouble. Either they'll solve issues in a fast and efficient way, or they can call me an ex customer, and rightly so.
I'm happy for you, but sorry for me. I bought it too and, in a few words, from a technical point of view it sucks. And I know stuff about PCs, although I'm more used to networks and systems than to single computers. It's my job.
I'm not going to recap my odissey with GTA IV, but in 24 years dealing with computers this is the first time (and I hope the last) that I have encountered such clumsiness from a major publisher, ranging from false minimal specs printed on the box (they differ from what Rockstar support states) to the lack of solutions to real and widespread problems in official forums, as long as you don't consider Valve's Steam forums an official Rockstar forum, because it isn't. It's Valve's: still, you can find some professionally organised solutions and workarounds there, which don't apply only to Steam. All these solutions are absent on the official support.
All things considered, it's an ugly way to treat customers. If the IT firm I work did things that way, I'd be serving coffee in a bar. There would be much more dignity. I thought the low ratings on Gamespot were undeserved, than I tried for myself. This game isn't simply rushed, it's at an early beta stage.
GTA IV may be promising but as long as Rockstar doesn't fix a lot of issues (precisely: crashes, unjustifiable poor performance, texture issues, authentication issues, false statements on game boxes, poor support - each single issue experienced by me) it's a botched piece of software. My friends were sending messages on the phones advising their friends not to buy the game while they were watching my plight in realtime and the total lack of clues regarding the unexplicable range of random crashes I had on a totally clean and working machine.
Publicly GTA IV for PC is being treated as a very troublesome game, and rightly so. No one's going to give me back the time I spent troubleshooting something that worked perfectly, and that means my pc: if I had to charge Rockstar for the time I spent trying to run the game at decent settings at my normal rates at work I'd collect 720 Euros. That's enough to buy a PS3 and a lot of games.
Add insult to injury, you can't even use a controller such a Logitech Rumblepad 2 unless you use the workaround you find on Valve's forum. Without that workaround I should shell 40 Euros more for a 360 type controller... GTA IV is running (almost) fine here at the moment after all my troubleshooting on something that worked perfectly with most recent games, but some well thought out patches and improvements are badly, badly needed.
No wonder this failure has been slashdotted, and poor ratings only reflect customers' dissatisfaction with a title who hasn't lived up to the expectations to the point it isn't even running on some systems which should manage GTA IV without a single problem. They'd better get their act together very soon. Otherwise I will just be waiting for Fallout 4, because no matter how many technical issues Fallout 3 has with its random crashes and sporadic texture issues, it's still far more playable than this mess.
All in all, this is a very bad publicity for those of us who shell out a significant amount of money in PCs (there are three working at my home constantly at the moment) and decide to support the gaming industry. I know I have a far superior machine compared to a console... I'd like to be able to use it, if developers and distributors allow me to do it. In this case, they didn't.
Mosley wasn't absolved... in fact he wasn't under trial. I can understand your point of view, but it looks like a spin. News of the World lost. Mosley won. NOTW had no right to publish that stuff, and the judge made it clear, honest belief or not.
Be disgusted as you like, but the truth is that the nazi allegations were found to be false in a tribunal. That's what the judge said and what I said from the start looking at the movie, and what I believe.
And I speak from the point of view of a person whose families were almost entirely committed to the Resistance to fascism and nazism: they taught a lot of things to me, and they are fondly remembered. My interpretation is independent from the tastelessness I may find in Mosley's personal life (and in his politically conservative positions too, to be precise). That's what I think. Be vocal as you like, but if you point at the omissions, you can also point to all the other important omissions, including what the prostitutes witnessed (and the ties to the secret service, which are quite amusing...).
Last edited by Albieg, .
I just gave more information answering to you what you said. Since those information aren't present in this forum and are quite important since they state an official point of view about Mosley, there's no need for such reactions of yours.
Neither is Mosley as stated in the trial against NOTW he won in an English tribunal, although the fact seems to be a bit overlooked by the people who dislike him.
So keep doing your important stuff and mind your children if you have them, read the announcements, race and spare some irritation to other forum users. That would be the mature thing to do.
Anyway the rulebook seems to be somewhat lacking. The unfair advantage seems to be the reason for the penalty. In my opinion the only way to qualify that advantage (that means, its existence and consequently the rule enforcement) would be to have access to telemetry data and a perfect understanding of the conditions, such as correct braking and turn in points at the moment of the incident.
This decision will always be controversial as long as there's this lack of transparency. I can't know and decide for myself if it's justified or not. Personally I found Hamilton's move questionable during the race, but not exactly outrageous. All the ensuing debate here didn't help me to understand exactly what went on since it relies on subjective data such as personal interpretations of images and movies. That's not enough, for me. I think that more information should be due from FIA in cases like this, if they really want to avoid their image being tarnished even more than it is at the moment, rightly or not.
I'll keep my opinion: FIA has interests in keeping the championship alive, not in selling it to Ferrari. Keep spectators interested, keep the money flowing. The conspiracy theories about Ferrari are just boring, and far from being supported by conclusive evidence by all those who consider themselves well informed.
Ah, financial link. That means business.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG