Sat in one of these today. It had the Recaros. I thought the seats felt awesome but... ahem.. "larger" people would likely find them miserable.
Granted, I didn't drive it but I liked them. Then again, I have been known to daily drive a car with an UltraShield aluminum road racing seat.
As for the interior, I can't get…
ThePinnacle
NeoConsTasteLikeChickenHawk
Nah. Just European Rube Goldberg machines can't run forever. There will still be plenty of Chevies powered by small blocks built today when today's European cars will have long since been turned into metal bricks.
This car is naturally aspirated. Try again.
This car is naturally aspirated ya nincompoop. It has ported heads, bigger cam, and exhaust work. Pretty standard gains for an LS7.
Being a student doesn't invalidate your findings nor are we in an academic setting (thank goodness). The paper does show (and cite) that many celebrities receive favorable treatment, and indeed also shows that some receive less than favorable treatment. The examples you cite were not involved in cases where someone…
They aren't isolated incidents. They are examples of a systemic bias in our system. http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewconten…
And that's not the only bias at work here, the other bias favors drivers: http://cironline.org/reports/bay-ar…
Fair enough. I just think that given the circumstances, the odds are that there was malicious intent. Drivers walking out onto the track is nothing new and is quite common yet incidents like this are virtually unheard of.
I would be more inclined to believe that it was an "accident" had the track not been under…
Scrutiny yes. O.J. was scrutinized too, look where that landed him. Ob yeah, a not guilty verdict.
I want to be sure I understand your point of view. Are you saying that victims are responsible for their injuries if their actions raises their risk level? Or are you saying that this action absolves other parties of negligence or malicious intent? Or is it both?
Cool. So this was probably the highlight of your week. I'm glad something positive came of this for you.
Pretty sure you didn't read it or understand it if you did. Not surprising given the tone of your response, it fits the description almost perfectly.
Well, I'm not sure which post you are referencing exactly but I will try and answer anyway.
The point I am trying to make are that there are many factors that seemingly absolve someone like Stewart of guilt in situations like this in the minds of most people. I think the primary factor is the just-world hypothesis. …
On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the most, how much influence do you think this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-worl… plays into your thought process?
As expected.
What I find interesting is the just-worlders of course defending Stewart.
Dang you seem really wound up by these facts.
His lawyers were probably scrambling to get him to pull out. Can't believe they let it get this far. Shouldn't be long before his handlers release a statement that goes something like "Tony is really distraught and doesn't even want to talk about racing right now".
It's ipso facto legal. No one goes to jail who meets those three simple criteria. And some of the people who don't meet the last two still get away with it.
Whatever words on paper you want to believe that give you a warm and fuzzy about our "just world" is just your psychological security blanket.
Killing people with…
Right, because someone that intentionally kills another human would never stoop that low. I mean, killing people is one thing, but laughing about it afterward?
Nah, you have fallen victim to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-worl…
The system is not actually just.
In 2012, 4,743 pedestrians and 726 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles.
Cite a single instance where criminal prosecution occurred in any of those deaths when:
The driver claimed it was an…