poty posted:

Not sure who you're referring to, my heroes are called Elizabeth, Margareth, Theresa, Winston and Boris.

Nigel Farage has made xenophobic statements which I do not share. Also, he siphons Tory votes, last year we were one unhappy accident away from electing Jeremy Comradyn

tuo posted:

dreesemonkey posted:

Haven't been able to really follow testing this season other than seeing occasional MCLRN+ incompetence. Have the toro rosso honda's been relatively reliable to sweeten the misery?

Powershift posted:

1500quidporsche posted:

Wirth1000 posted:

He's been with her for over a decade and she's practically always by his side during FIA presentations and press events......

DoctorGonzo posted:

She was a fan of Scuderia Ferrari.

Singapur 2017 was a loving tragedy.

Dumb Username posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je2Z41IXL-4

The Croc posted:

this is what it was translated to in browser:

Melbourne is a track with a rather low average speed, so it is necessary to expand the outlets to the bottom of the bellies to ensure the necessary cooling to the engine. Note also the slide that starts the channel in the bottom.
The Ferrari has slightly opened the vent of the sides in the tail to facilitate the extraction of hot air from the radiators that this year I'm not more packed to V as on the SF70H.

In the rear axle a body configuration has been chosen that is more suited to a track that does not have a high average speed so it is necessary to preserve the reliability of the power unit that must last seven GPs, giving up a little 'aerodynamic efficiency.

The image also highlights where the "step" in the bottom of the transmission begins, which allows the SF71H to create a sort of expansion channel. This innovative part of the car did not give outstanding results in the winter tests, making the car a little unstable in balancing.

It is the effect of the lengthening of the sensible lengthening of the Red Pass that needs to find the right tuning on the track, given that the data would be very good at the CFD and in the tunnel. It will only take a little patience ...


for the record GOOD TIMES ON METH answer was better

DoctorGonzo posted:

https://twitter.com/diegofmejia/status/976997326131744768?s=19

track day bro! posted:

Lol @ Riccccciardo being a wasteman https://twitter.com/F1inSpanish/status/977114040802607106

The Kimoa Kid posted:

You want the wall first, for maximum impact, the hit the other drivers on the rebound.

Carth Dookie posted:

I cannot begin to explain how much I hate the idea of either Hamilton or Vettel winning another title.

The Kimoa Kid posted:

It seems like there's a clear top three (Mercedes/Red Bull/Ferrari) and a clear bottom three (Williams/Toro Rosso/Sauber) but the midfield is complete nonsense.

Halo14 posted:

Senior driver, Lance Stroll. Wtf.

Zaphod42 posted:

Yeah Haas power is real

Wirth1000 posted:

Taiwan?>>>??

POCKET CHOMP posted:

Do you have Fox Sports 3 Pirate Radar? Usually it's not so bad with the ads. At least when they actually put it there and not simulcast UBA games that are also on FS1!!!!

Taiwan was definitely not on the list of countries that were initially getting the streaming package, either.

td4guy posted:

Apparently Williams were particularly poo poo in this race due to a software issue. They literally couldn't adjust engine modes on their Mercedes engine. Stuck in garbage mode for the whole race or something.

DoctorGonzo posted:

Reportado por racista

1500quidporsche posted:

History is the life of nations and of humanity. To seize and put into words, to describe directly the life of humanity or even of a single nation, appears impossible.

The ancient historians all employed one and the same method to describe and seize the apparently elusive--the life of a people. They described the activity of individuals who ruled the people, and regarded the activity of those men as representing the activity of the whole nation.

The question: how did individuals make nations act as they wished and by what was the will of these individuals themselves guided? the ancients met by recognizing a divinity which subjected the nations to the will of a chosen man, and guided the will of that chosen man so as to accomplish ends that were predestined.

For the ancients these questions were solved by a belief in the direct participation of the Deity in human affairs.

Modern history, in theory, rejects both these principles.

It would seem that having rejected the belief of the ancients in man's subjection to the Deity and in a predetermined aim toward which nations are led, modern history should study not the manifestations of power but the causes that produce it. But modern history has not done this. Having in theory rejected the view held by the ancients, it still follows them in practice.

Instead of men endowed with divine authority and directly guided by the will of God, modern history has given us either heroes endowed with extraordinary, superhuman capacities, or simply men of very various kinds, from monarchs to journalists, who lead the masses. Instead of the former divinely appointed aims of the Jewish, Greek, or Roman nations, which ancient historians regarded as representing the progress of humanity, modern history has postulated its own aims- the welfare of the French, German, or English people, or, in its highest abstraction, the welfare and civilization of humanity in general, by which is usually meant that of the peoples occupying a small northwesterly portion of a large continent.

Modern history has rejected the beliefs of the ancients without replacing them by a new conception, and the logic of the situation has obliged the historians, after they had apparently rejected the divine authority of the kings and the "fate" of the ancients, to reach the same conclusion by another road, that is, to recognize (1) nations guided by individual men, and (2) the existence of a known aim to which these nations and humanity at large are tending.

At the basis of the works of all the modern historians from Gibbon to Buckle, despite their seeming disagreements and the apparent novelty of their outlooks, lie those two old, unavoidable assumptions.

In the first place the historian describes the activity of individuals who in his opinion have directed humanity (one historian considers only monarchs, generals, and ministers as being such men, while another includes also orators, learned men, reformers, philosophers, and poets). Secondly, it is assumed that the goal toward which humanity is being led is known to the historians: to one of them this goal is the greatness of the Roman, Spanish, or French realm; to another it is liberty, equality, and a certain kind of civilization of a small corner of the world called Europe.

In 1789 a ferment arises in Paris; it grows, spreads, and is expressed by a movement of peoples from west to east. Several times it moves eastward and collides with a countermovement from the east westward. In 1812 it reaches its extreme limit, Moscow, and then, with remarkable symmetry, a countermovement occurs from east to west, attracting to it, as the first movement had done, the nations of middle Europe. The counter movement reaches the starting point of the first movement in the west--Paris--and subsides.

During that twenty-year period an immense number of fields were left untilled, houses were burned, trade changed its direction, millions of men migrated, were impoverished, or were enriched, and millions of Christian men professing the law of love of their fellows slew one another.

What does all this mean? Why did it happen? What made those people burn houses and slay their fellow men? What were the causes of these events? What force made men act so? These are the instinctive, plain, and most legitimate questions humanity asks itself when it encounters the monuments and tradition of that period.

For a reply to these questions the common sense of mankind turns to the science of history, whose aim is to enable nations and humanity to know themselves.

If history had retained the conception of the ancients it would have said that God, to reward or punish his people, gave Napoleon power and directed his will to the fulfillment of the divine ends, and that reply, would have been clear and complete. One might believe or disbelieve in the divine significance of Napoleon, but for anyone believing in it there would have been nothing unintelligible in the history of that period, nor would there have been any contradictions.