Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1.moderato
Titolo: Se fossi la FIA - brigantamezzismo

Brigantamezzismo.
La proposta Ferrari dei 15mila km + 15mila č accettata.
I 15mila km del produttore di pneumatici vanno compiuti:
a) da un pilota scelto dalla Fia tra i migliori della F3 e della F3000, 
magari per sorteggio (naturalmente il pilota deve essere consenziente, ergo 
si deve creare una lista preventiva di eleggibili)
b) dalla vettura del team peggio qualificato, in configurazione standard ed 
identica. Cioč per Bridgestone prova Minardi (a spese Bridgestone), per 
Michelin prova Toyota (a spese Michelin).
BTW la Michelin l'anno prima di entrare nel mondiale provň tutto l'anno con 
un solo pilota designato e con una Williams vecchia di 1 anno in 
configurazione standard
-- 
Fluoredshift
"I miei valori sono piů forti di chi cerca di influenzarli". A. Senna
http://www.bloggers.it/filippofilippini/
 

I 15mila km del produttore di pneumatici vanno compiuti:
E se invece i 15mila km per le gomme non si fanno e basta?
15 mila km per scuderia, poi ci testi quello che vuoi, quando vuoi e
dove vuoi.
-- 
Ciao, Muttley

 dove vuoi.
Questo e' il succo della proposta iniziale rifiutata da Ferrari.
Ciao,
Luca

 
Questo si' che sarebbe brigantamezzismo!
In fondo la Ferrari ha fatto la proposta con l'assunto (scimmiesco) "noi 
Bridgestone, noi altri 15.000 km, noi fichi".
Cosi' sarebbero inculati (si puo' dire?) dalla loro stessa proposta.
Anche se non escludo che gli stessi si comprerebbero la Minardi e ci 
metterebbero dentro due F2004 che in campionato farebbero guidare ai 
cuggini di Barrichello preventivamente indottrinati stile "Manchurian 
candidate"
Tutto intorno a te...

 dove vuoi.
Sono d'accordo.
Ma questa linea di principio è stata rifiutata in partenza dalla 
Ferrari (tu hai detto 15000 km, "i 9" dissero 10 gg).

> Tutto intorno a te...
per il 2005 è previsto di togliere di mezzo Megan Gale. Al suo posto lo
spot lo girano Todt, di Montezemolo e Schumacher
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG


Già previsto (anche se non esplicitato del tutto nel mio post iniziale): lo 
sviluppo va fatto con la Minardi 2004, con ali e tutto il resto bloccate
-- 
Fluoredshift
"I miei valori sono più forti di chi cerca di influenzarli". A. Senna
http://www.bloggers.it/filippofilippini/
 

seek other, dangerous outlets
   (drugs, , crime, "cults," hate groups) unless they were biological or
   psychologically engineered to adapt them to such a way of life.
 
   177. Needless to day, the scenarios outlined above do not exhaust all
   the possibilities. They only indicate the kinds of outcomes that seem
   to us mots likely. But wee can envision no plausible scenarios that
   are any more palatable that the ones we've just described. It is
   overwhelmingly probable that if the industrial-technological system
   survives the next 40 to 100 years, it will by that time have developed
   certain general characteristics: Individuals (at least those of the
   "bourgeois" type, who are integrated into the system and make it run,
   and who therefore have all the power) will be more dependent than ever
   on large organizations; they will be more "socialized" that ever and
   their physical and mental qualities to a significant extent (possibly
   to a very great extent ) will be those that are engineered into them
   rather than being the results of chance (or of God's will, or
   whatever); and whatever may be left of wild nature will be reduced to
   remnants preserved for scientific study and kept under the supervision
   and management of scientists (hence it will no longer be truly wild).
   In the long run (say a few centuries from now) it is it is likely that
   neither the human race nor any other important organisms will exist as
   we know them today, because once you start modifying organisms through
   genetic engineering there is no reason to stop at any particular
   point, so that the modifications will probably continue until man and
   other organisms have been utterly transformed.
 
   178. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that technology is
   creating for human begins a new physical and social environment
   r

and that no other goal can be
   allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should
   take an empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the
   recommendations made in the foregoing paragraphs are not going to give
   good results, then those recommendations should be discarded.
 
  TWO KINDS OF TECHNOLOGY
 
 
 
   207. An argument likely to be raised against our proposed revolution
   is that it is bound to fail, because (it is claimed) throughout
   history technology has always progressed, never regressed, hence
   technological regression is impossible. But this claim is false.
 
   208. We distinguish between two kinds of technology, which we will
   call small-scale technology and organization-dependent technology.
   Small-scale technology is technology that can be used by small-scale
   communities without outside assistance. Organization-dependent
   technology is technology that depends on large-scale social
   organization. We are aware of no significant cases of regression in
   small-scale technology. But organization-dependent technology DOES
   regress when the social organization on which it depends breaks down.
   Example: When the Roman Empire fell apart the Romans' small-scale
   technology survived because any clever village craftsman could build,
   for instance, a water wheel, any skilled smith could make steel by
   Roman methods, and so forth. But the Romans' organization-dependent
   technology DID regress. Their aqueducts fell into disrepair and were
   never rebuilt. Their techniques of road construction were lost. The
   Roman system of urban sanitation wa

form of society and the other is to set up the new form of society
   envisioned by the revolutionaries. The French and Russian
   revolutionaries failed (fortunately!) to create the new kind of
   society of which they dreamed, but they were quite successful in
   destroying the existing form of society.
 
   183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have
   a positive ideals well as a negative one; it must be FOR something as
   well as AGAINST something. The positive ideal that we propose is
   Nature. That is , WILD nature; those aspects of the functioning of the
   Earth and its living things that are independent of human management
   and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we
   include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the
   functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation
   by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God
   (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).
 
   184. Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several
   reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the
   opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power
   of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful;
   certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical
   environmentalists ALREADY hold an ideology that exalts nature and
   opposes technology. [30] It is not necessary for the sake of nature to
   set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature
   takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that 

our society
   has dealt with other social problems that are far more simple and
   straightforward. Among other things, the system has failed to stop
   environmental degradation, political corruption, drug trafficking or
   domestic abuse.
 
   137. Take our environmental problems, for example. Here the conflict
   of values is straightforward: economic expedience now versus saving
   some of our natural resources for our grandchildren [22] But on this
   subject we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from the people
   who have power, and nothing like a clear, consistent line of action,
   and we keep on piling up environmental problems that our grandchildren
   will have to live with. Attempts to resolve the environmental issue
   consist of struggles and compromises between different factions, some
   of which are ascendant at one moment, others at another moment. The
   line of struggle changes with the shifting currents of public opinion.
   This is not a rational process, or is it one that is likely to lead to
   a timely and successful solution to the problem. Major social
   problems, if they get "solved" at all, are rarely or never solved
   through any rational, comprehensive plan. They just work themselves
   out through a process in which various competing groups pursing their
   own usually short-term) self-interest [23] arrive (mainly by luck) at
   some more or less stable modus vivendi. In fact, the principles we
   formulated in paragraphs 100-106 make it seem doubtful that rational,
   long-term social planning can EVER be successful. 138. Thus it is
   clear that the human race has at best a very limited capacity for
   solving even relatively straightforward social problems. How then is
   it going to solve the far more dif

rural. The industrial Revolution vastly
   increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that
   lives in them, and modern agricultural technology has made it possible
   for the Earth to support a far denser population than it ever did
   before. (Also, technology exacerbates the effects of crowding because
   it puts increased disruptive powers in people's hands. For example, a
   variety of noise-making devices: power mowers, radios, motorcycles,
   etc. If the use of these devices is unrestricted, people who want
   peace and quiet are frustrated by the noise. If their use is
   restricted, people who use the devices are frustrated by the
   regulations... But if these machines had never been invented there
   would have been no conflict and no frustration generated by them.)
 
   49. For primitive societies the natural world (which usually changes
   only slowly) provided a stable framework and therefore a sense of
   security. In the modern world it is human society that dominates
   nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes
   very rapidly owing to technological change. Thus there is no stable
   framework.
 
   50. The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of
   traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological
   progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that
   you can't make rapid, drastic chang

educational methods, for planning, for affirmative
   action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He
   tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often
   finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of
   using the common catch-phrases of the left like "racism, " "sexism, "
   "homophobia, " "capitalism," "imperialism," "neocolonialism "
   "genocide," "social change," "social justice," "social
   responsibility." Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his
   tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay
   rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights political
   correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these
   movements is almost certainly a leftist. [36]
 
   230. The more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most
   power-hungry, are often characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic
   approach to ideology. However, the most dangerous leftists of all may
   be certain oversocialized types who avoid irritating displays of
   aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their leftism, but work
   quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values,
   "enlightened" psychological techniques for socializing children,
   dependence of the individual on the system, and so forth. These
   crypto-leftists (as we may call them) approximate certain bourgeois
   types as far as practical action is concerned, but differ from them in
   psychology, ideology and motivation. The ordinary bourgeois tries to
   bring people under control of the system in order to protect his way
   of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are conventional.
   The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the system
   because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The
   cryp

upper-level business executives, government officials,
   etc..). It should NOT be drawn between the revolutionaries and the
   mass of the people. For example, it would be bad strategy for the
   revolutionaries to condemn Americans for their habits of consumption.
   Instead, the average American should be portrayed as a victim of the
   advertising and marketing industry, which has suckered him into buying
   a lot of junk that he doesn't need and that is very poor compensation
   for his lost freedom. Either approach is consistent with the facts. It
   is merely a matter of attitude whether you blame the advertising
   industry for manipulating the public or blame the public for allowing
   itself to be manipulated. As a matter of strategy one should generally
   avoid blaming the public.
 
   191. One should think twice before encouraging any other social
   conflict than that between the power-holding elite (which wields
   technology) and the general public (over which technology exerts its
   power). For one thing, other conflicts tend to distract attention from
   the important conflicts (between power-elite and ordinary people,
   between technology and nature); for another thing, other conflicts may
   actually tend to encourage technologization, because each side in such
   a conflict wants to use technological power to gain advantages over
   its adversary. This is clearly seen in rivalries between nations. It
   also appears in ethnic conflicts within nations. For example, in
   America many black leaders are anxious to gain power for African
   Americans by placing back individuals in the technological
   power-elite. They want there to be many black government officials,
   scientists, corporation executives and so f