Yoda McFly

I'm a little late here, been working 60+ hour weeks ... Happy birthday, Bruce!

Agreed; see Villeneuve v. Arnoux, Dijon '79. The problem is, although I generally agree with what else you said (quoted below), very few drivers are willing (able?) to drive it that hard any longer (not to mention that carbon suspension components can't survive wheel-banging passes); it's all about the championship and protecting the points. Villeneuve and his "win or crash trying" attitude wouldn't make it through his first season nowadays; he'd be shuffled off in favor of a pay-driver that doesn't break expensive cars. Agreed that more fans and pundits should have some seat time (even in a kart) before mouthing off. That said, I don't believe the drivers *have* to drive the car at its limits these days, and as a mentioned above, it's not possible to battle as hard (with formula cars) as it was in the "good old days". All together, I've seen too many instances of a slower driver getting to the front of the pack (through pit choices, usually) and then the faster guys behind him *demanding* a blue flag for a pass for position ... Get rid of the silly blue flag and let (or make) the drivers drive.

Happy birthday, Mike; hope all is going well.

So, I just have to ask... With all this "unification" bullcarp we heard about last year ... How come there's only 22 full-season entrants? I won't repeat any of my Anti-King-George or pro-CART from the old days ranting ... I just want to know, if "unification" was what was supposed to "save open-wheel racing in N. America" ... Where the hell are the 35-car entry lists? Is the 500 going to be "No-bump" again? I know, "it takes time", "rebuilding year" and all that tripe ... I'm kind of looking forward to 2011, but with all the talk from the George-Meister himself and others in power about how the new chassis will have heavy input from "artistes" and "design students", frankly, scares the crap out of me. They seem to have finally gotten the "flying machines" to stop flying ... Let's not get back to those days, please. Oh, yeah. I'm alive and stuff. It's time for my yearly post. And don't get me ranting on F1 ... But, I seem to have arranged a method to get V8s coverage without having to wait till the end of the year, so I'll survive.

Yeah, see, I'm late as usual. Happy birthday, mate. I hope it was a good one!

Yeah, yeah. Between the death of ChampCar and the obvious bias that the governing body of one sport is showing to one team over the other teams, I've been a bit burned out on talking about open-wheel for a while. I've also had a ton (tonne) (sh*t-ton) of stuff happening in Real Life

I've always wondered what the Polish national anthem sounded like ... And people scoffed when I bought my Kubi hat before the season.

I'm quite aware of that massacre. And, as I understand it, you already had quite strict gun control laws at the time. In the US, over that same 12 years, yes, some of our gun laws have become more relaxed, but the our crime rates, have, in general, and depending on which statistics you believe, dropped. Remember that the only times guns are mentioned by our media is in the aftermath of a horrendous shooting, which, next to our death rates by cancer, drunk driving and non-firearm-related accidents, are really not that common. You never hear about the single mother that pulls her licensed gun, and by virtue of the fact she has it, prevents her estranged husband from raping and murdering her, without firing a shot. You rarely hear about the legally armed citizen that prevents mass murder, or even a single murder. You only hear about the heinous acts, because that's what ****ing sells copy. I'd also like to point out that it's only been in the last 40-50 years that our gun control has become as strict as it is. In the 1950's, children took guns to school regularly, for after-school shooting programs. Before 1968, you could order any gun by mail, and have it delivered to your house. Certainly there were no waiting periods, background checks, etc. Before 1934, basically anyone could legally own a fully automatic weapon ... There were no mass murders then. No school shootings. And if you think guns are easier to get a hold of now than they were then. On the other hand, people were held responsible for their own actions. Have you ever bothered to look at the similarities between these mass-murderers? They're all ****ing attention whores, that want their names to go down in history. What would happen if the media didn't print their names? They're unstable; many have slipped out of the mental health system because it's a violation of their civil rights. Yet the same people that would guarantee them their "right" to wander the streets, homeless, vagrant and larcenous want to deny my my rights that are guaranteed by the same document. It's not the "ease-of-access" that causes crime. It's people that, by definition, are already law-breakers, that have no morals, no sense of humanity, that think the only way to become famous is through infamy. The blame also lays squarely at the feet of the media that glorifies them, and the parents/guardians/role models that can't be ****ing bothered to take an interest in what their precious little snowflakes are doing out in the garage. More than that, though, the blame lies with the a##hole that pulls the trigger. It's time people started sacking up, and putting the blame where it belongs. If you could make absolutely certain that *every one* of the literally billions of firearms that exist on this planet were gone, then your utopian society might have a chance. Until the big, burly guys that know how to use a sword started bullying everyone around, again. Or have you forgotten what pre-firearm society was like? Are you descended from royal blood? Are you strong enough and skilled enough with a sword to carve out your own empire? Take the emotion out of it. In truth, re-reading what I've written here, I've allowed too much emotion through, and although I will apologize, I'm not rewriting any of it, because the emotion underscores the logic. Your emotion defies the logic.

So, please explain how calmly and quietly standing by and allowing one maniac to kill 32 and wound 15 is "better" than having someone with the training, equipment and intestinal fortitude stand up, confront the murderer, and stop him? I've heard of turning the other cheek, but that is farking insane. Actually, no, it's just suicidal. How, precisely, would you have handled it? As I pointed out, earlier in this thread, the government is under no obligation to protect you, at least here in the U.S. Or, presuming that there was one officer for each citizen, to ensure that there was enough coverage to stop this animal, would you have been okay with a cop blowing him away? What is, in your opinion, an appropriate answer to violence? "With a firm tone of voice, demand maniac lie down with hands behind back. 'Please, sir, you're acting in an antisocial manner.'"? Here's some homework for you ... Look the following up on Google: "Pearl, Mississippi High School", +"Jeanne Assam", "Ken Hammond" and "Willie Lee Hill". Please note that none of these events gained major coverage on any of the national or international wires... The body counts weren't high enough... And, if I were one to argue the issue of bias in the media, it could be argued that these stories contradict the media's bias. Now, a pop quiz: What do Northern Illinois University, Virginia Tech, the Westroads Mall and the Trolley Square Mall all have in common? They are so-called "gun-free" zones ... Which, as can clearly be seen from recent history, only ensures that the mass murderers are virtually guaranteed to have helpless victims. When was the last time you heard of a shooting rampage at a gun show? Here's a wild idea: For those of you that want me to register my guns ... I'll go one better. Let's have a special version of the phone book printed up, and next to each name will be a small "Y" or "N" indicating if that person is a gun-owner. Wonder which group would have the higher rate of crime directed at them? Now, if I haven't bashed your heads with enough logic, we'll try one more thought, briefly touched on by AutoRacer5, that will surely only get me branded as an "ugly, bloodthirsty American," but, oh well. WHY DO THE SHEEPLE INSIST ON BLAMING THE TOOL FOR THE ACTIONS OF ITS WIELDER???

Actually, that describes much of the planet ...

Racing incident, yes. But does anyone honestly believe that, had the roles been reversed, there wouldn't have been a massive hue and cry?

Dammit, I keep forgetting about finding Minchia's place when I'm up there ... I was in Vegas over Mother's Day weekend (Turkey), and had an interesting experience. Saturday afternoon, I visited a Sports Book (which one doesn't matter), and asked if they took bets on F1. For those unfamiliar with Vegas, it's been said that you can get odds on anything in that town. Some of the bets you can play during the Super Bowls are downright bizarre). Of course, they all take bets on NASCAB.... At any rate, the answer: Nope. Not a chance. Well, do you at least have the Quali results? Nope. Not a chance.

Dare I point out that knives are already basically illegal there ... ? Depends. First and foremost, to use an American-ism that I know you, Eric, as well as the other Americans will understand, it's easy to be a Monday-morning quarterback. When you have lots of time to ponder, debate and discuss the issue, it's easier, no matter which side you're on. "Hindsight is 20/20" and all that. When you're in a potentially life-threatening situation, strange things happen to your sense of time, and you are forced to make the best decision you can, under the circumstances. That said, as a racer yourself, Eric, I know you know more than a bit about split-second decisions. So ... To sum up all of the thinking that has to go into a split-second, potentially life-or-death decision: is he armed? if so, with what? Do I perceive a legitimate threat to my life or someone else's life? What happens when I point my weapon and flashlight at him, announce myself and order him to cease and desist? More directly to your questions: if he's unarmed, and insists on menacing me after having a weapon drawn on him, and I feel an imminent threat to life or safety, then, yeah, he's going down. Same goes if he's holding a gun or a knife or a baseball bat or a can of mace. If, however, armed or not, when confronted, he proves to not be a threat (or ceases to be a threat), then, no, it's unconscionable to shoot him out of hand. It's also illegal. And I, for one, don't give a rat's arse about a "fair fight." If I feel my life, or the lives of my family, are in danger, I will fight to my dying breath to stop that motherfarker, taking any advantage I can, and "fairness" be damned. Also note that a large percentage (I don't have a statistic immediately available) of hostile encounters immediately deescalate when the intended victim shows resistance. In other words, the majority of cases (in the US) wherein the intended victim shows that they are armed and prepared to defend themselves, end with the surrender or flight of the initial aggressor. My personal action plan for an intruder goes as follows: Wake my wife, give her the phone, and remind her to CALL 911. Retrieve my bedside weapon and flashlight, and discern the nature of the threat. 99 times out of a hundred (actually, I just pulled that statistic out of my arse, but the truth is somewhere in that vicinity), the perceived threat is benign, the perpetual winds that plague my neighborhood causing things to bang, coyotes howling, a rabbit or other rodent bolting through the back yard (which causes my dogs to have apoplectic fits), etc ... After clearing the interior of the house, I'll take a look around outside. After confirming all is well, I'll return to bed. In the event I should encounter an intruder, he gets 120 lumens in his face, as well as a warning to stand down. (This, of course, presumes that I don't find him actively threatening someone). If he's a threat, and refuses to stand down, I shoot. Have there been incidents wherein someone appeared to be a threat, was shot, and subsequently shown to be unarmed? Absolutely. One must still ask what that supposed "innocent" was doing inside someone else's house uninvited, during the wee hours ... Have there been incidents wherein the "defender" was overzealous in his "self-defense"? Absolutely, but those situations are exceedingly rare, and almost inevitably, the "defender" is tried and convicted. The right and duty to defend oneself does not extend to the right to kill someone "because he needed killin'". In truth, in this country, even if the shooter was totally in the right, it is quite possible, for political reasons, for that shooter to be dragged through the mud of lengthy criminal and civil litigation, wherein all the Monday quarterbacks endlessly debate whether he was truly justified. Even our law enforcement officers routinely have to defend themselves against specious attacks on their character, motives, intelligence and decision-making capacity, when they should be receiving accolades for removing a violent parasite from society. Is the situation perfect? No; but given the fact that the police are under no legal obligation to prevent a crime or "save" you (this has been addressed in our courts many times; the job of the police is to investigate crime, not prevent it), I don't see any better alternatives, and, as has been mentioned many times, by many men and women over the last ~225 years, there are potential costs to maintaining a free society. "Freedom isn't free," "TANSTAAFL" and all that. The simple fact is that, if you choose to take responsibility for your own safety, you may be called upon to make a tough decision under the absolute worst of circumstances. The alternative is to let someone else be responsible for that safety; "It wasn't my responsibility to defend my wife/mother/child/self" is cold comfort at the funeral, if you ask me. I've been the recipient of gunfire; I've been the victim of burglary; thank $DIETY that I've not been faced with that middle-of-the-night need to make that life and death decision; I hope I never have to. I do feel that I have done as much mental preparation for that moment as possible. I also hope and wish that no one else would ever be faced with those decisions, but as a simple statement of fact, there are predators in this world, that will stop at nothing to take what is yours and make it their own. Should you ever meet up with one of them, the decision of how to respond rests squarely on your shoulders. </soapbox>

So ... Knives aren't the next thing to be banned? And guns are the only way to commit murder and mayhem, eh? No problems with drunken driving, or any other misuse of a car, baseball bats, brass knuckles, high explosives, rat poison ... And, help me with a definition here: It's illegal to commit murder. It's illegal to own a gun without a license. What makes you think that someone who, by definition is a lawbreaker and wishes to commit murder, is suddenly going to obey a different law and not use a gun? Personally, I wish that mankind could be trusted, but the simple fact is, he can't. As a species, we are bent on dominating everything around us to our will; believing differently is not simple naivete (and I know, I cant' spell that word right), it's downright dangerous. Blissfully believing that you're safe because "no one can have a gun" and "we don't have any criminals because we don't have any guns" sounds nice, but it simply won't happen. Someone will come along that wants your "stuff"; your money, your possessions, your life ... And if you're unwilling or unable to protect yourself or your family, that raving nutter will take them away, whether he's a common thug or a hostile ruler.

Well ... To be purely pedantic. If it's all-electric, it's a motor, but whatever ... What about the batteries? You all know that rechargeable batteries have a limited number of charge-discharge cycles before they "die", right? You all know that they're toxic waste when they have to be replaced, right? (BTW, 'Yota sez batteries in their Hybrids need to be replaced every ~8 to 10k miles ...) So ... Which is worse? 200lbs (100kg) toxic waste every 8k miles? Plus the gas that the car burns over that time? Edit: (I suppose I should point out two additional items: Hybrids are only more efficient than "standard" engines in "around town" or what the U.S. EPA calls "city driving". In "Highway Driving" they are, on average, only 1 mpg better ... 2) The average U.S. driver puts 15 thousand miles on their car per year ... That's an average of 1.5 batteries...) Yeah. Thought so.