Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1.moderato
Titolo: [ENG] Formula 1 team bosses open up but say little

Source: 
grandprix.com
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns13959.html
Nine of the 10 Formula 1 teams met in London yesterday and invited
members of the media to join them for a part of the meeting, presumably
to demonstrate their solidarity in the fight against Ferrari over the
question of control tyres and the reduction of testing. Ferrari did not
attend the meeting but sent a letter proposing an alternatively
arrangement to reduce testing. The teams want 24 days of testing in the
season while Ferrari suggested a maximum of 15,000km with an additional
15,000km for each of the tyre companies. But the Ferrari proposal called
for the tyre manufacturers to be bale to choose the teams with which they
would test. Michelin would naturally split the testing equally between
the seven teams it will be supplying (giving them each 2142km each) while
Ferrari would be all of the Bridgestone testing, given the team an
appreciable advantage. The teams agreed to stick together and requested
the FIA to provide for four hours of testing on Fridays at the races for
the teams which agree not to test between events. The FIA used this
mechanism to create the so-called Heathrow Testing Rules last year and
could do so again for 2005.
The teams also agreed to push ahead with the plan to get control tyres
although the cancellation of the Formula 1 Commission means that this
cannot be dealt with before Christmas and so will not come into effect
until January 1 2007. The teams however are understood to have explored
the possibility of introducing this rule without having to give 12 months
of warning to the tyre companies. There is apparently no legal need to do
that although the team bosses appear to accept that there is a moral
consideration.
We understand that the teams also agreed to keep the qualifying structure
which the FIA has introduced.
The teams are believed to have discussed the calendar and we believe that
despite rumours to the contrary the British GP is still on, even if the
French GP now looks likely to be moved from its April 17 date to July. If
this happens one can only assume that the British GP will be moved to
April as it is doubtful that the teams would have agreed to three races
on consecutive weekends as Britain is scheduled for July 3 and Germany
for July 17. Bernie Ecclestone has been quoted as saying that the British
GP has only 48 hours to agree a deal but this does appear to have been a
big issue at the meeting.
the one part of the meeting that no-one was willing to discuss is what
the teams concluded on the subject of Max Mosley's recent decision to
cancel the Formula 1 Commission meeting. The move caused considerable
discontent amongst the F1 team owners and some of the promoters are also
understood to be less than happy but whatever the discussions, there is
clearly a vow of secrecy surrounding the planned course of action.
Copyright 1988-2004, Inside F1, Inc.
-- 
Automatically gathered from the web
Subscribe/unsubscribe/info at
http://www.grandprixpassion.com/mailman/listinfo/webnews

 big issue at the meeting.
Quindi non č piů la Ferrari che minaccia il GP Gran Bretagna, sono le
pretese di Ecclestone...
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 (o_        Vinci                     registered Linux User #276630
 //\         " Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent "
 V_/_                     Salvor Hardin, Foundation

 sui quattro top team e gli altri si arrangino.
Mcl, Wil, Toy,Ren, BAR. In effetti sarebbero 3000km a testa, molto diverso
da 2100 ;)
Ciao,
Luca

 da 2100 ;)
Parlavo di principi : anche la Michelin fa comunque delle differenze fra i
suoi "riforniti"
BTW, se anche la Bstone accettasse un'equa divisione dei suoi km, tra
tutti i clienti (3 se non ricordo male), i team con Bstone si troverebbero
avvantaggiati perché avrebbero 5000 km a testa rispetto ai 2100 degli
altri, oltre il doppio. Considerato poi che non credo proprio che la
Minardi sia in grado di fare 5000 km di test per le gomme e lo stesso per
la Jordan, anche in presenza di un gesto di "buona volontà" della Bstone
la Ferrari rimarrebbe comunque molto favorita.


 tutti i clienti, i team con Bstone si troverebbero avvantaggiati...
Ragazzi, ma lo state ancora a commentare?
Il trucco di far finta di partecipare ad una trattativa avanzando una
proposta assurda e ridicola (ma soprattutto: assolutamente inaccettabile
per gli altri) solo per cercare di far passare "gli altri" per cattivi
è vecchia come il cucco... c'è cascato solo Jimmy Carter all'epoca dei
trattati USA-URSS... (mi fermo per non andare troppo OT sulla politica).
Ciao.
Mauro

 il vantaggio di provare di più sulla pista usata per la gara.
D'accordo.

 supera ampiamente i 300 MUSD?
Al momento la Toyota, direi se non altro per i risultati... e poi non si
era detto che i budget sono sempre più striminziti, tranne ovviamente
quello della Ferrari ?


 quello della Ferrari ?
Si era detto chi?
Gli ultimi dati, riferiti, che ho letto sono stati quelli postati da 
te.
Quindi al limite la colpa è tua .......
In ogni caso 350 MUSD non lo considero un budget striminzito.
Così come il fatto che sia 100MUSD (circa) inferiore a quello della 
Ferrari lo considero significativo.

 Quindi al limite la colpa č tua .......
Intendo altro : quando si parla di forniture Michelin, i clienti sono
tutta gente che spende budget elevatissimi, quando si parla di confronti,
sono con le pezze al culo.... basta decidersi.


 sono con le pezze al culo.... basta decidersi.
Temo di non aver capito ........
Mi pare che il mio/tuo/AutoSport esempio numerico (con tutti i dubbi 
del caso essendo cifre non ufficiali) fosse chiarissimo e non vedo 
quali strane e diverse (dalle mie) elucubrazioni si possano fare a 
partire da quelle cifre.

 partire da quelle cifre.
Discorso Michelin : la Michelin non può certo dire "cavoli vostri" a chi
impegna in F.1 budget stratosferici
Discorso budget : la Ferrari vince perché ha un budget della Madonna e
nessuno dei top-team è in grado nemmeno di avvicinarcisi, per cui non
c'è nessuna possibilità che abbiano i mezzi per vincere.


 c'è nessuna possibilità che abbiano i mezzi per vincere.
Il problema è che "stratosferico" è diverso da +Inf
Ergo c'è sempre una ionosfera sopra una stratosfera.
E quel 20% è MOLTO significativo per avvicinarsi alla ionosfera, specie 
in un contesto in cui io devo arrangiarmi con i "velivoli" esistenti 
per arrivare in stratosfera e non esiste, di fatto, la possibilità di 
inventarne di nuovi.
Sinceramente non vedo cosa ci sia di incomprensibile o di incoerente.
Se tu lo vedi spiegamelo perchè io non ci sono arrivato.

 Se tu lo vedi spiegamelo perchè io non ci sono arrivato.
Più che altro presumo che sia una diversa percezione delle soglie e delle
differenze, niente di grave :-)


 differenze, niente di grave :-)
Niente di grave, ci mancherebbe! :-)
E quali solo le tue "soglie di significatività"?

 E quali solo le tue "soglie di significatività"?
Diciamo che per me i top team hanno tutti le stesse potenzialità (ci
comprendo soldi degli sponsor, dei diritti, delle case che possono
decidere di investire di più o di meno) quindi si trovano in una
condizione paragonabile. Molto diversa la situazione dei vari Sauber,
Jordan, Minardi e presumibilmente ex-Jaguar


 Jordan, Minardi e presumibilmente ex-Jaguar
Ok, fermo restando che top team e team minori vivono in mondi diversi.
100 MUSD come li "pesi"?
Perchè sarà anche vero che le "potenzialità" sono uguali per tutti, ma 
c'è qualcuno che i suddetti soldi li spende in più degli altri.
Vogliamo accreditare su questa base (ripeto: assumendo che sia vero; 
potrebbe non esserlo) a questo team maggiori possibilità di successo 
degli altri? 
Possiamo, inoltre, affermare che questa differenza pesa molto più 
adesso dove conta di più il "lavoro a testa bassa di fino sul 
particolare" che non l'inventiva, rispetto a 10-20 anni fa o no?

psychological conflict. Hence they tend
   to lean on others in making difficult decisions. The majority of
   people are natural followers, not leaders, but they like to have
   direct personal access to their leaders and participate to some extent
   in making difficult decisions. At least to that degree they need
   autonomy.
 
   6. (Paragraph 44) Some of the symptoms listed are similar to those
   shown by caged animals.
 
   To explain how these symptoms arise from deprivation with respect to
   the power process:
 
   Common-sense understanding of human nature tells one that lack of
   goals whose attainment requires effort leads to boredom and that
   boredom, long continued, often leads eventually to depression. Failure
   to obtain goals leads to frustration and lowering of self-esteem.
   Frustration leads to anger, anger to aggression, often in the form of
   spouse or child abuse. It has been shown that long-continued
   frustration commonly leads to depression and that depre

course in a discussion of
   this
 
   kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can
   sometimes be wrong. So we don't claim that this article expresses more
   than a crude approximation to the truth.
 
   232. All the same we are reasonably confident that the general
   outlines of the picture we have painted here are roughly correct. We
   have portrayed leftism in its modern form as a phenomenon peculiar to
   our time and as a symptom of the disruption of the power process. But
   we might possibly be wrong about this. Oversocialized types who try to
   satisfy their drive for power by imposing their morality on everyone
   have certainly been around for a long time. But we THINK that the
   decisive role played by feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem,
   powerlessness, identification with victims by people who are not
   themselves victims, is a peculiarity of modern leftism. Identification
   with victims by people not themselves victims can be seen to some
   extent in 19th century leftism and early Christianity but as far as we
   can make out, symptoms of low self-esteem, etc., were not nearly so
   evident in these movements, or in any other movements, as they are in
   modern leftism. But we are not in a position to assert confidently
   that no such movements have existed prior to modern leftism. This is a
   significant question to which historians ought to give their
   attention.
 
   NOTES
 
   1. (Paragraph 19) We are asserting that ALL, or even most, bullies and
   ruthless competitors su

of autonomy in pursuit of
   goals. But it is also disrupted because of those human drives that
   fall into group 3: the drives that one cannot adequately satisfy no
   matter how much effort one makes. One of these drives is the need for
   security. Our lives depend on decisions made by other people; we have
   no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the
   people who make them. ("We live in a world in which relatively few
   people - maybe 500 or 1,00 - make the important decisions" - Philip B.
   Heymann of Harvard Law School, quoted by Anthony Lewis, New York
   Times, April 21, 1995.) Our lives depend on whether safety standards
   at a nuclear power plant are properly maintained; on how much
   pesticide is allowed to get into our food or how much pollution into
   our air; on how skillful (or incompetent) our doctor is; whether we
   lose or get a job may depend on decisions made by government
   economists or corporation executives; and so forth. Most individuals
   are not in a position to secure themselves against these threats to
   more [than] a very limited extent. The individual's search for
   security is therefore frustrated, which leads to a sense of
   powerlessness.
 
   68. It may be objected that primitive man is physically less sec

they do for themselves is done more and more along channels laid down
   by the system. Opportunities tend to be those that the system
   provides, the opportunities must be exploited in accord with the rules
   and regulations [13], and techniques prescribed by experts must be
   followed if there is to be a chance of success.
 
   67. Thus the power process is disrupted in our society through a
   deficiency of real goals and a deficiency of autonomy in pursuit of


work to gain
   a powerful reward -- fulfillment of their revolutionary vision -- and
   therefore work harder and more persistently than reformers do.
 
   142. Reform is always restrainde by the fear of painful consequences
   if changes go too far. But once a revolutionary fever has taken hold
   of a society, people are willing to undergo unlimited hardships for
   the sake of their revolution. This was clearly shown in the French and
   Russian Revolutions. It may be that in such cases only a minority of
   the population is really committed to the revolution, but this
   minority is sufficiently large and active so that it becomes the
   dominant force in society. We will have more to say about revolution
   in paragraphs 180-205.
 
  CONTROL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR
 
 
 
   143. Since the beginning of civilization, organized societies have had
   to put pressures on human beings of the sake of the functioning of the
   social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly from one society
   to another. Some of the pressures are physical (poor diet, excessive
   labor, environmental pollution), some are psychological (noise,
   crowding, forcing humans behavior into the mold that society
   requires). In the past, human n

Industrial Revolution has radically altered man's environment and way
   of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology is
   increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be
   altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been.
 
  HUMAN RACE AT A CROSSROADS
 
 
 
   161. But we have gotten ahead of our story. It is one thing to develop
   in the laboratory a series of psychological or biological techniques
   for manipulating human behavior and quite another to integrate these
   techniques into a functioning social system. The latter problem is the
   more difficult of the two. For example, while the techniques of
   educational psychology doubtless work quite well in the "lab schools"
   where they are developed, it is not necessarily easy to apply them
   effectively throughout our educational system. We all know what many
   of our schools are like. The teachers are too busy taking knives and
   guns away from the kids to subject them to the latest techniques for
   making them into computer nerds. Thus, in spite of all its technical
   advances relating to human behavior the system to date has not been
   impressively successful in controlling human beings. The people whose
   behavior is fairly well under the control of the system are tho

't permanently change any
   important part without change all the other parts as well.
 
   103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to
   alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the
   society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various
   other societies have passed through the same change and have all
   experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on
   empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same
   change will be like to experience similar consequences.)
 
   104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on
   paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance,
   then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to.
 
   105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of
   human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of
   a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the
   environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the
   environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways;
   and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to
   be untangled and understood.
 
   106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose
   the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of
   social

seize power. What we do suggest is
   that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a
   position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no
   practical choice but to accept all of the machines decisions. As
   society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and
   machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines
   make more of their decision for them, simply because machine-made
   decisions will bring better result than man-made ones. Eventually a
   stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the
   system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable
   of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in
   effective control. People won't be able to just turn the machines off,
   because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would
   amount to suicide.
 
   174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the
   machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have
   control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car of
   his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines wi

well satisfied, we (FC) would still be opposed to that form of
   society, because (among other reasons) we consider it demeaning to
   fulfill one's need for the power process through surrogate activities
   or through identification with an organization, rather then through
   pursuit of real goals.
 
  THE MOTIVES OF SCIENTISTS
 
 
 
   87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of
   surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by
   "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on
   highly specialized problem that are not the object of any normal
   curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an
   entomologist curious about the properties of
   isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious
   about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry
   is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the
   appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That
   question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested
   in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the
   chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to
   obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their
   abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit,
   then they couldn't giver a damn about isopropyltrimethylmetha

to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost
   their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our
   way of life today would not have been significantly different. Maybe
   we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had
   a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President.
   No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a
   counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them.
 
   110. Still, one has to use common sense in applying the principles.
   They are expressed in imprecise language that allows latitude for
   interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found. So we present
   these principles not as inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or
   guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas
   about the future of society. The principles should be borne constantly
   in mind, and whenever one reaches a conclusion that conflicts with
   them one should carefully reexamine one's thinking and retain the
   conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.
 
  INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY CANNOT BE REFORMED
 
 
 
   111. The foregoing principles help to show how hopelessly difficult it
   would be to reform the industrial system in such a way as to prevent
 

of
   its breakdown will be; so it may be that revolutionaries, by hastening
   the onset of the breakdown will be reducing the extent of the
   disaster.
 
   168. In the second place, one has to balance the struggle and death
   against the loss of freedom and dignity. To many of us, freedom and
   dignity are more important than a long life or avoidance of physical
   pain. Besides, we all have to die some time, and it may be better to
   die fighting for survival, or for a cause, than to live a long but
   empty and purposeless life.
 
   169. In the third place, it is not all certain that the survival of
   the system will lead to less suffering than the breakdown of the
   system would. The system has already caused, and is continuing to
   cause , immense suffering all over the world. Ancient cultures, that
   for hundreds of years gave people a satisfactory relationship with
   each other and their environment, have been shattered by contact with
   industrial society, and the result has been a whole catalogue of
   economic, environmental, social and psychological problems. One of the
   effects of the intrusion of industrial society has been that over much
   of the world traditional controls on population have been thrown out
   of balance. Hence the population explosion, with all that it implies.
   Then there is the psychological suffering that is widespread
   throughout the supposedly fortunate countries of the West (see
   paragraphs 44, 45). No one knows what will happen as a result of ozone
   depletion, the greenhouse effect and other environmental problems that
   cannot yet be foreseen. And, as nuclear proliferation has shown, new
   technology cannot be kept out of the hands of dictators and
   irresponsible Third World nations. Would you like to speculate abut
   what Iraq or North Korea will do with genetic engineering?
 

ideology opposed to technology, there
   is no reason to believe that anyone would be interested in rebuilding
   industrial society. The enthusiasm for "progress" is a phenomenon
   particular to the modern form of society, and it seems not to have
   existed prior to the 17th century or thereabouts.
 
   211. In the late Middle Ages there were four main civilizations that
   were about equally "advanced": Europe, the Islamic world, India, and
   the Far East (China, Japan, Korea). Three of those civilizations
   remained more or less stable, and only Europe became dynamic. No one
   knows why Europe became dynamic at that time; historians have their
   theories but these are only speculation. At any rate, it is clear that
   rapid development toward a technological form of society occurs only
   under special conditions. So there is no reason to assume that
   long-lasting technological regression cannot be brought about.
 
   212. Would society EVENTUALLY develop again toward an
   industrial-technological form? Maybe, but there is no use in worrying
   about it, since we 

of control over the human mind will be
   taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society, such as
   curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to
   study science and engineering. In many cases, there will be
   humanitarian justification. For example, when a psychiatrist
   prescribes an anti-depressant for a depressed patient, he is clearly
   doing that individual a favor. It would be inhumane to withhold the
   drug from someone who needs it. When parents send their children to
   Sylvan Learning Centers to have them manipulated into becoming
   enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from concern for their
   children's welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one
   didn't have to have specialized training to get a job and that their
   kid didn't have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd. But
   what can they do? They can't change society, and their child may be
   unemployable if he doesn't have certain skills. So they send him to
   Sylvan.
 
   153. Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a
   calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social
   evolution (RAPID 



by
   widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be
   enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to
   be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in
   which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered
   but only pushed a step ahead.
 
   101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not
   stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather
   than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a
   long-term trend at all.
 
   102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large
   to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, than it will alter
   the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which
   all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently change any


not take
   such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
   Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems
   serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
   frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black
   people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white
   majority tends to intensify race hatred.
 
   22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would
   have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse
   for making a fuss.
 
   23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate
   description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only
   a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.
 
  OVERSOCIALIZATION
 
 
 
   24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the
   process by which children are trained to think and act as society
   demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and
   obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning
   part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists
   are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel.
   Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such
   rebels as they seem.
 
   25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can
   think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not
   supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some
   time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are
   so highly socialized tha