Ha, you said "tyre." It's like you English got a word for everything.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Yes kind of like the mashup between a baby hedgehog and a car tyre

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
We all could have. Still, it's amazing how well they mash together. In a disturbing way.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Yeah, coulda lived without that one

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I told disco_man about this already, and I thought you might be equally amused and/or disturbed by it too.

Yes kind of like the mashup between a baby hedgehog and a car tyre

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
We all could have. Still, it's amazing how well they mash together. In a disturbing way.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
Yeah, coulda lived without that one

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I told disco_man about this already, and I thought you might be equally amused and/or disturbed by it too.

incredible how you dont here any tyre squeal AT ALL.

Being a Finn I do watch a certain amount of ski jumping, and no, that ramp at the end isn't there when people jump. It's probably just there to "simulate" the jumping motion of a ski jumper (infact, I think they explain that in the video).

I do think rolling resistance does play a part in all this, just not sure how big a part. The F1 tyre is slightly heavier (longer jump), has a slightly smaller radius (longer jump, according to arvana) than the sports car tyre, and jumps the shortest. What I know of F1 tyres is that they are very very sticky and have very poor rolling resistance (that is "lots of it"). Also of course it's way wider and hence has more drag, but that isn't enough to explain the difference. So yeah, I think we need more testing. I live only a few kilometers from the Puijo K-120 hill (also has two smaller ones) and am going to find out what it would take to get them to let me try this. =)

But what we really need is someone trying this on the mother of all ski jumping hills, the Planica (K-185, record 239+m, Ahonen jumped even longer but couldn't stay up) with a sturdy ramp that can take on the 220kg tyre. Also we need rocket boosters to get the speed up and over 200kmh. =)

Hi there. I hope I can put this to bed for you at last.
My name is Baxter Tyre, I was 12 when 3 Men and a Baby was released and I can tell you that that was NOT a cardboard cut-out behind the net curtains. Neither was it a ghost! I can reveal that it was, in fact, me.
Now I've told this story many, many times and depending on how passionate people are about the myth surrounding this scene, I often find people do not believe me. In fact, I was once slapped across the face by a medium at a convention when she felt my claim was disrespectful to the memory of the boy whose "ghost" she claimed belonged to a Hugo Havern.

Anyway, my father, Jack (aka Jammy), was actually an understudy of one of the films cameramen and between him and my father (who was previously a stuntman but retired after breaking his cocsics on set while filming Sword and The Sorcerer) they sneaked me and by best buddy Xavier on to the sound stage in Toronto.

Anyway I ended up in the scene unwittingly and was super scared that my dad would get fired if anyone found out because that was about the 20th take and the director was getting pretty p***ed. When they discovered thee people behind the movie invented this mischievous little story which was big, via word of mouth, for a while, but EXPLODED when the internet became so massive.

So thats why I'm telling you all now. I know you probably won’t believe me but there it is. I was (and still am-kind of) the boy in the movie that you all love to speculate about.

This may sound like a plug, but I'm putting the finishing touches to a book that explains the whole story. It will be released in 2009.

Dupe.

*discard

Fundamentally, you don't have to root for anyone. If you don't know who deserves to win, generally you wouldn't want to support any particular contestant.

The reason the swimming video, for example, got so many votes is that most sifters were impressed by the general level of performance, rather than cheering for 'their' team who happened to do well. I don't know enough about the sport to make a judgment, but it's possible the French really were the better swimmers and ought to have won. I don't believe the one chance, do-or-die approach to competition taken in the Olympics is a good measure of an athlete's ability.

I'll give you an example of a sport I enjoy - Formula 1. The reason is it's essentially handicapped, different drivers in different stages of their careers, in different cars built on different budgets with different tyres and different strategies. This means I can applaud many individually good performances, of cars, drivers and teams, and indeed pit mechanics, tyre manufacturers, and so on.

In reply to this comment by Lolthien:
Fair enough, that does clarify your position somewhat. But so I understand your position on cheering for the most capable person during a contest, how exactly do you determine that before the contest is complete. That swim relay was an excellent example, for all intents and purposes the French team were considered to be better swimmers. Therefore we should have rooted for them? And since they lost in the last few seconds, we would have picked the wrong team to root for?

I have to admit, I'm enjoying this discussion. But I'm currently stuck at exactly how you determine who to cheer on during a contest before it is complete?

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
You have not understood me.

Let 'most skilled' or 'most competent' mean 'most capable at the task to be tested'. This can include such things as determination, strategy, training discipline, as well as raw talent and mechanical proficiency.

It is possible for a lesser-skilled competitor to triumph, in a flawed test.
It is possible to celebrate an undeserved victory, but one should not.

In reply to this comment by Lolthien

>> ^MINK:
sorry to interrupt the very interesting stuff about gold.. but i have to repeat that i am not suggesting Obama use an antimeat campaign tactic. i KNOW. He's not gonna do that and it would be suicide.
That's my fucking point. It shows the hypocrisy. If people really cared about pollution they would radically change their lifestyles, but they're not gonna do that, so... how about they fill up their tyres once and we all leave it to the next generation to sort out? Yeah... sounds like that's the best option. I might as well start supporting obama on the internet, even if I have to be a hypocrite to do that. Right. I can see your logic.


I'm not sure I understand your point, since this would appear to be a shortcoming of democracy, that leaders can't force a populace to take radical action, even if it's for their own good (not that I'd change that, mind you).

I'm frustrated with how hard it is to get action on environmental issues too, but that's not Obama's fault, it's the entire American society's fault.

If you believe it's the President's responsibility to shift public opinion, blame Bush for the current state of affairs.

sorry to interrupt the very interesting stuff about gold.. but i have to repeat that i am not suggesting Obama use an antimeat campaign tactic. i KNOW. He's not gonna do that and it would be suicide.

That's my fucking point. It shows the hypocrisy. If people really cared about pollution they would radically change their lifestyles, but they're not gonna do that, so... how about they fill up their tyres once and we all leave it to the next generation to sort out? Yeah... sounds like that's the best option. I might as well start supporting obama on the internet, even if I have to be a hypocrite to do that. Right. I can see your logic.

car engine runs on better on inflated tyres than soft tyres. if the tyres are soft, you burn more fuel. its just like forcing the vehicle to run on a flat tyres. i've tried it and in runs better than before. it smoothens your driving. you have nothing to loose if you just inflate your tyres.

>> ^MINK:
my point, darlings, is that Obama pretends to give a shit but his hands are tied. He can't ban meat pollution, even if it is the largest problem, because of the meat industry. He can't say "stop driving" because of the car industry and oil industry. So he says "fill up your tires" as if saying THAT will make a difference (it won't). You all applaud, as if applauding will make a difference (it won't).


That wasn't the point of his speech, the tyre thing was a simple question from an individual about what he could do personally to help the situation...

You're making the same mistake McCain and co. did, inferring that a part of energy policy is filling the tyres. It never was anything but a simple tip, but it drew the ignorant antagonists to him like flies to shit.

Ironic that you watched the video and still made the same mistake...


Let me ask you this, if we really do need radical lifestyle changes because of warming/cooling/watershortage/desertification whatever.... are you gonna vote for the guy that actually proposes changes or are you gonna vote for the guy who has a poster with "CHANGE" written on it and a few bandaid policies that keep everyone happy until the apocalypse?


Hah, or is everyone going to act locally while thinking globally without being led around by a figurehead like an ignorant herd of cattle on the way to said abbatoir...

Highly fucking unlikely imo... People hate change at the best of times, unless an emergency is waved in front of their noses, they don't want to know and/or change, usually until it's too late.

If you really do need a radical change in lifestyle it's going to be too fucking late to worry about who you're voting. Because odds on, you've been cloistered away from reality so long that when the change comes, it'll be too late to change and the candidate that wins will be the person that can facilitate your survival.

Note: You/your etc meaning the world and each nation in it, not directly at you Mink.

>> ^MINK:
>> ^jwray:
Mink, you may want sweeping changes, but in the mean time it's good to make small improvements here and there. People aren't going to stop eating meat any time soon.

people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.
Of course he isn't going to say "stop eating meat" but the reason is economic, not social. He needs to keep the meat industry happy. the fact that meat production is the worst thing in the entire environment after asbestos factories just kinda... isn't relevant, right? send people to their local petrol station to fill up their tyres and buy a coke.
so keep voting for these guys who talk bullshit and pretend they care when really their hands are tied.
gobama indeed. at last the USA has a Tony Blair, and we all know how kewl that is.


The problem with your angry stance is that is ANYONE tried to run for office and go straight for the 'stop eating meat', do you think they'd get into office?

Hmm?

Do you?

No, of course they bloody wouldn't, so what would be the friggen point of running with that? What's the point of running with 'Stop eating meat', that will instantly put off a huge number of people (including myself, I'm very, very pro environment, wish the government would start spending some big bloody money on it, don't care if it hurts us financially at the moment, because it'll be a win in the long run)? All that'd do is not get said person elected.

Brilliant plan.

I'd MUCH prefer someone who takes the steps they can get away with, slowly ramping up the scale of changes as people get used to them. You start off small, or start off with big things that don't directly affect people's way of life, and then slowly introduce those things that require people to change their behaviour. It's the only way you're going to be able to be in power and do ANYTHING.

So stop with the 'Well, if he isn't prepared to ban all cars, make everyone vegans and insist that people only breath out on alternating days, then I won't vote for him'. It's insane logic.

And it just smacks of you trying to be a smartass and saying 'look, I think I know something you don't, meat production causes lots of environmental impact'. If you think it's so damn important, you run for office with that as your lead policy and see how far you get.

>> ^jwray:
people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.
Sooo what do you suggest? A tire-filling gestapo?


No, I think he's advocating a Vegetarian gestapo.

people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.

Sooo what do you suggest? A tire-filling gestapo?

>> ^jwray:
Mink, you may want sweeping changes, but in the mean time it's good to make small improvements here and there. People aren't going to stop eating meat any time soon.


people aren't gonna fill their tyres up any time soon either, it's just fucking rhetoric. i bet you not more than 5% of the people who said "WHOOOOOO!!!!" went home and filled their fucking tires.

Of course he isn't going to say "stop eating meat" but the reason is economic, not social. He needs to keep the meat industry happy. the fact that meat production is the worst thing in the entire environment after asbestos factories just kinda... isn't relevant, right? send people to their local petrol station to fill up their tyres and buy a coke.

so keep voting for these guys who talk bullshit and pretend they care when really their hands are tied.

gobama indeed. at last the USA has a Tony Blair, and we all know how kewl that is.