Google’s Autonomous Prius Drives Blind Man to Taco Bell:
Steve Mahan is clinically blind, having lost 95 percent of his vision over the course of several years. But on a sunny day in the Bay Area, the Google crew arrived to shuttle him around, running errands like the rest of us and making a trip through the Taco Bell drive-through.
It’s one of the most compelling cases for driverless cars.
Steve’s freedom could be regained when autonomous vehicles make it to the mainstream, enabling other visually-challenged denizens to enjoy the freedoms most of us take for granted.
As we highlighted in last month’s cover issue, the age of the autonomous car is coming up quickly, with Google, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and General Motors all working on new, innovative ways of making the driverless car a reality.
Still, there’s more to this video than Google’s brief YouTube description conveys.
To begin with, the legal hurdles of self-driving cars are numerous and varied. While Nevada has enacted legislation to allow the testing of driverless vehicles on public roads, there are still a myriad of legislative challenges ahead, ranging from how many occupants have to be in the vehicle to who’s at fault if a collision occurs.
Partner that with the fact that destinations have to be pre-programmed and the waters get even murkier, although Google concedes that Mahan’s ride was “a carefully programmed route.”
But even with all that in mind, after watching Steve’s simple journey for a bad burrito, how can you not get behind a technology that enables one of the most quintessentially American freedoms?
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Some Questions On ObamaCare's Compassion For Dahlia Lithwick and Other Bleeding-Heart Liberals
Some Questions On ObamaCare's Compassion For Dahlia Lithwick and Other Bleeding-Heart Liberals:
Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick, usually a solid advocate of
civil liberties against government intrusions, can’t for the life
of her understand what all the fuss about the loss of economic
liberties due to ObamaCare is all about. Shell shocked by the
shellacking that the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli received at
the hearing Tuesday, she went into a deep sulk and threw the
intellectual equivalent of a
hissy fit.
How dare the conservatives on the bench ask Verilli if he
recognized any limiting principles on the government’s powers under
the Commerce Clause to coerce activity? By simply posing this
question, the conservative justices had revealed just how dark,
primitive and – above all – uncompassionate their conception of
freedom was. She wrote:
sure.)
But if she’s having trouble understanding the conservative
conception of freedom, I’m having difficulty understanding her
conception of compassion. So here are some questions that might
help clear the cobwebs off my Neanderthal brain.
One: Liberals insist that the individual mandate forcing
everyone to buy coverage is necessary to prevent freeloaders from
saddling everyone else with the cost of their emergency care. One
can defend this provision by appealing to individual responsibility
(as the awful Mitt Romney did) or the need for a more rational
health care system, or, if liberals were honest, putting in place a
funding mechanism for universal coverage. But why is forcing
someone to buy a product against their wishes on the threat of
fines or jail compassionate?
Liberals might say that the individual mandate is not
compassionate, but the system in whose service it’s being deployed
– universal coverage – is because everyone will get better care.
But that only raises more questions: one conceptual and one
empirical:
Conceptually, if we subtract the cruelty of the means from the
alleged compassion of the ends, will there be a net increase in
compassion?
Empirically, if people don’t experience significant health gains
under universal coverage, as there is
scientific evidence to believe they won’t, does the mere
intention of compassion matter?
Two: The individual mandate shows that it does not matter
to Lithwick and her fellow progressives that they have to resort to
conscription to enact their grand compassionate designs. But does
who they are conscripting matter? In the bad old days of the draft,
the fact that politically powerless minorities ended up serving
disproportionally more than rich, powerful white kids made the
system even more immoral.
Shouldn't that doom ObamaCare too?
In our current health care system, a mix of taxpayers; (rich)
hospitals/providers and (even richer) private insurers are stuck
with the tab for uncompensated care. There are many problems with
this. But isn’t it at least more compassionate than ObamaCare that
would force asset-poor young people – trying to pay off their
college debt and hang on to some beer money – to subsidize the
coverage of relatively wealthier prospective geezers? If maximizing
compassion is the issue, shouldn't we stick with what we've
got?
Three: In the Manichean worldview of Lithwick & Co.,
one can have compassion or freedom but not both. That would be news
to Aristotle who, for a dead, white, male, wrote some rather lovely
stuff in the Nichomachean Ethics about how freedom is a
pre-requisite for genuine compassion.
If anything, the evidence that compulsion leads to more
compassion is slim at best. Despite the fact that doctors and
hospitals have a legal obligation to treat emergency cases, the
total amount of uncompensated care provided in America currently
adds up to only $40.7
billion annually or about 3 percent of our total health care
spending (hardly the kind of problem that justifies a draconian
2,500-plus page government power grab). This is comparable to the
3 to 5 percent of billable hours in pro bono services that big
law firms, that have no equivalent compulsion, aim to
offer.
Why is it obvious that, absent a legal requirement, doctors
would offer any less free care than lawyers? Is it at all plausible
that people who have chosen healing the sick as their vocation
would simply walk away as poor people “bleed out on the curb,” as
Lithwick worries?
Three: Related to the above point, have liberals ever considered
that freedom and compassion are not enemies, but friends? That
incentivizing, rather than forcing, compassion might be a better
way to go? For example, how about offering, say, Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation tax breaks to buy coverage for the uninsured?
I can already hear derisive laughter. But does that show that
opponents of ObamaCare are indifferent to compassion – or that
liberals have contempt for freedom?
No doubt it’s my naivety that is causing me to ask such
simple-minded questions. But perhaps liberals can enlighten me – in
the name of compassion, you know.
civil liberties against government intrusions, can’t for the life
of her understand what all the fuss about the loss of economic
liberties due to ObamaCare is all about. Shell shocked by the
shellacking that the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli received at
the hearing Tuesday, she went into a deep sulk and threw the
intellectual equivalent of a
hissy fit.
How dare the conservatives on the bench ask Verilli if he
recognized any limiting principles on the government’s powers under
the Commerce Clause to coerce activity? By simply posing this
question, the conservative justices had revealed just how dark,
primitive and – above all – uncompassionate their conception of
freedom was. She wrote:
Until today, I couldn’t really understand why this case was(She had no freedom from acid reflux as she wrote this, I’m
framed as a discussion of “liberty.” This case isn’t so much about
freedom from government-mandated broccoli or gyms. It’s about
freedom from our obligations to one another, freedom from the
modern world in which we live. It’s about the freedom to ignore the
injured, walk away from those in peril, to never pick up the phone
or eat food that’s been inspected. It’s about the freedom to be
left alone. And now we know the court is worried about freedom: the
freedom to live like it’s 1804.
sure.)
But if she’s having trouble understanding the conservative
conception of freedom, I’m having difficulty understanding her
conception of compassion. So here are some questions that might
help clear the cobwebs off my Neanderthal brain.
One: Liberals insist that the individual mandate forcing
everyone to buy coverage is necessary to prevent freeloaders from
saddling everyone else with the cost of their emergency care. One
can defend this provision by appealing to individual responsibility
(as the awful Mitt Romney did) or the need for a more rational
health care system, or, if liberals were honest, putting in place a
funding mechanism for universal coverage. But why is forcing
someone to buy a product against their wishes on the threat of
fines or jail compassionate?
Liberals might say that the individual mandate is not
compassionate, but the system in whose service it’s being deployed
– universal coverage – is because everyone will get better care.
But that only raises more questions: one conceptual and one
empirical:
Conceptually, if we subtract the cruelty of the means from the
alleged compassion of the ends, will there be a net increase in
compassion?
Empirically, if people don’t experience significant health gains
under universal coverage, as there is
scientific evidence to believe they won’t, does the mere
intention of compassion matter?
Two: The individual mandate shows that it does not matter
to Lithwick and her fellow progressives that they have to resort to
conscription to enact their grand compassionate designs. But does
who they are conscripting matter? In the bad old days of the draft,
the fact that politically powerless minorities ended up serving
disproportionally more than rich, powerful white kids made the
system even more immoral.
Shouldn't that doom ObamaCare too?
In our current health care system, a mix of taxpayers; (rich)
hospitals/providers and (even richer) private insurers are stuck
with the tab for uncompensated care. There are many problems with
this. But isn’t it at least more compassionate than ObamaCare that
would force asset-poor young people – trying to pay off their
college debt and hang on to some beer money – to subsidize the
coverage of relatively wealthier prospective geezers? If maximizing
compassion is the issue, shouldn't we stick with what we've
got?
Three: In the Manichean worldview of Lithwick & Co.,
one can have compassion or freedom but not both. That would be news
to Aristotle who, for a dead, white, male, wrote some rather lovely
stuff in the Nichomachean Ethics about how freedom is a
pre-requisite for genuine compassion.
If anything, the evidence that compulsion leads to more
compassion is slim at best. Despite the fact that doctors and
hospitals have a legal obligation to treat emergency cases, the
total amount of uncompensated care provided in America currently
adds up to only $40.7
billion annually or about 3 percent of our total health care
spending (hardly the kind of problem that justifies a draconian
2,500-plus page government power grab). This is comparable to the
3 to 5 percent of billable hours in pro bono services that big
law firms, that have no equivalent compulsion, aim to
offer.
Why is it obvious that, absent a legal requirement, doctors
would offer any less free care than lawyers? Is it at all plausible
that people who have chosen healing the sick as their vocation
would simply walk away as poor people “bleed out on the curb,” as
Lithwick worries?
Three: Related to the above point, have liberals ever considered
that freedom and compassion are not enemies, but friends? That
incentivizing, rather than forcing, compassion might be a better
way to go? For example, how about offering, say, Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation tax breaks to buy coverage for the uninsured?
I can already hear derisive laughter. But does that show that
opponents of ObamaCare are indifferent to compassion – or that
liberals have contempt for freedom?
No doubt it’s my naivety that is causing me to ask such
simple-minded questions. But perhaps liberals can enlighten me – in
the name of compassion, you know.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
How to Understand a Baffling New Technology
How to Understand a Baffling New Technology:
HEY EVERYBODY!! MY THIRD BOOK IS AVAILABLE AT AMAZON.COM!!
It's also available on Amazon in the UK and in Canada.
I should also point out (because I said I would) that if you click on the Amazon links above and buy anything, I will receive a small percentage, at no cost to you.
I'd also like to thank everyone who has used the appiliate links so far. It really does help.
HEY EVERYBODY!! MY THIRD BOOK IS AVAILABLE AT AMAZON.COM!!
It's also available on Amazon in the UK and in Canada.
I should also point out (because I said I would) that if you click on the Amazon links above and buy anything, I will receive a small percentage, at no cost to you.
I'd also like to thank everyone who has used the appiliate links so far. It really does help.
Why Do So Many Believers Think Atheists Are Worse Than Rapists?
Why Do So Many Believers Think Atheists Are Worse Than Rapists?:
“We’re here! We’re godless! Get used to it!,” chanted the crowd
of 20,000 or so atheists at this past weekend’s Rally for Reason in Washington, D.C.
As the chant suggests, the protesters styled their event on the
National Mall (which was not affiliated with
Reason magazine in any way) as a “coming out” party
for atheists. One participant even carried a sign ripped off from
the heyday of gay rights demonstrations: “Hi Mom. I’m an
Atheist!"
The rally was advertised as the largest ever gathering of
atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and other assorted faithless
folks. The relatively young crowd was treated to talks, rants,
and routines by such faithless luminaries as biologist Richard
Dawkins, American Atheists president David Silverman, professional
skeptics Michael Shermer and James Randi, mythbuster Adam Savage,
profane musician Tim Minchin, and (via video) comedian Penn
Jillette. Off to the side was a small collection of Christian
counterprotesters (including members of the truly awful Westboro
Baptist Church) who assured the assembled nonbelievers that
Christianity’s loving God would consign them all to everlasting
fiery damnation unless they changed their wicked ways.
But it is not just Westboro Baptist kooks who dislike atheists.
Polls show that most Americans are uneasy (to say the least) with
unbelievers. Consider a Pew Research poll from June 2011 that
found that 33 percent of respondents said that they would be
less likely to vote for a candidate who was homosexual and 62
percent said that it would make no difference. For atheist
candidates, the numbers were basically flipped: 61 percent of
respondents said that a candidate's atheism would make them less
likely to vote for them and only 33 percent said it would make no
difference. A June 2011 Gallup Poll
reported that only 49 percent of voters would vote for a “well
qualified” presidential candidate who was an atheist. The next
lowest vote percentage went to a gay candidate for whom 67 percent
would consider voting. The good news for atheists is that the
trends are moving in the right direction: in a 1958 poll only 18
percent said that they'd vote for an atheist.
In fact, a side-by-side comparison of polling data finds that
tolerance for theological deviance is evolving slower
than acceptable of what used to be called sexual deviance. In
1977 a Harris poll reported that
55 percent respondents thought that gays should not be allowed to
be teachers but 80 percent said they could work in factories;
now 69
percent say it’s OK for them to be teachers and a later
survey finds that 89
percent believe that gays should have equal rights in
terms of job opportunities. Atheists as a group lag behind in
acceptance when compared to gays; a recent study found that
only 33 percent of respondents would hire an atheist as a day care
worker, but 65 percent would hire them as a waitress.
It’s no wonder that atheists poll so badly—religious folks
believe that the godless are about as trustworthy as rapists, at
least according to a recent study. In “Do
You Believe in Atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist
prejudice” [PDF], published in Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology in December. The
researchers reported that religious participants in the study
regarded atheists as being
more criminally untrustworthy than rapists. "Outward
displays of belief in God may be viewed as a proxy for
trustworthiness, particularly by religious believers who think that
people behave better if they feel that God is watching them,"
explained
University of British Columbia psychologist Ara Norenzayan, one of
the researchers on the study. "While atheists may see their
disbelief as a private matter on a metaphysical issue, believers
may consider atheists' absence of belief as a public threat to
cooperation and honesty." In a 2003
study [PDF], 48 percent (the highest of disapproval rating of
any group) of Americans said that they would disapprove of their
children marrying an atheist.
This distrust prompts one to wonder if believers really do worry
that people would engage in rampant murder and mayhem if they
thought that there was no vengeful deity monitoring their behavior
at all times. In fact, psychological research does
confirm that a lot of religious believers do tend to think this
way. In light of those fears, one prominent slogan featured on
placards at the Rally for Reason, “Be Good for Goodness’ Sake” must
appear nonsensical to believers.
Distrust of atheists has an long intellectual pedigree. After
all, Athenian philosopher Socrates was convicted for,
among other crimes, preaching atheism (which he artfully denied).
Eighteenth century liberal British philosopher John Locke is
thought to have jumpstarted the notion of the separation of church
and state in his A Letter Concerning
Toleration. However, even Locke believed that atheists
were not to be tolerated. “Promises, covenants, and oaths, which
are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist,”
he wrote. In addition, Locke asserted, “Those that by their atheism
undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of
religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration.”
Only believers have the standing to demand that their beliefs be
tolerated by the state.
“God and government are a dangerous mix,” warned Annie Laurie
Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation at the
rally. Believers especially would do well to keep this fact in
mind. Locke’s proposal for the separation of church and state was
an idea devised to prevent the legal domination of one sect over
other dissenting sects. As Locke well appreciated, mixing
government and God has proven to be a sure recipe for civil strife
and often war. The government should be secular, reserving civil
society as the non-coercive arena for religious practice and
contention.
Unfortunately, some politicians, most especially including this
season’s flock of would-be Republican presidential candidates want
to inject a little more God into government. Their loud professions
of faith may, however, be provoking a backlash among voters.
Another Pew poll
reported earlier this month that the percentage of Americans
who say that there is too much public expression of religious faith
among politicians rose from 12 percent in 2001 to 38 percent now.
Sadly, 30 percent still think there is too little faith-mongering
by politicians and 25 percent believe the amount is just about
right. Even better news: 54 percent now say that churches should
keep out of politics, whereas only 40 percent think that they
should express views on social and political questions. Back in
1996, 54 percent thought churches should meddle in politics and
only 43 percent wanted them to butt out.
Voters will certainly bring their religious convictions (or lack
thereof) into the voting booth with them. But what the
constitutional principle of separation between God and government
prevents is setting religious tribes against one another in a fight
over political favors and the distribution of tax dollars.
In its March 12 issue, Time magazine listed “The
Rise of the Nones” as one of the biggest trends in the U.S. It
turns out that fastest growing religious group in the United States
are Americans who list their religious affiliation as “none.” A Pew
survey found that 16 percent of Americans
are unaffiliated with any religious group; about of whom half could
be described as secular unaffiliated. Twenty-five percent of
Americans aged 18 to 29 are unaffiliated with any particular
religion. If this trend toward nonbelief continues, it’s going to
be harder and harder for believers to “hate” atheists because the
damned nonbelievers are going to turn out to be people they already
love and value, their children, other relatives, friends,
neighbors, and co-workers.
See the Reason.tv video, "What We Saw at the Reason Rally," by
my colleagues Joshua Swain and Lucy Steigerwald below:
Disclosure: I have been “out” as an atheist since by early
teens, and as far as I know I have never suffered discrimination
based on my lack of belief in an omniscient Sky God.
Ronald Bailey
is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and
Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available
from Prometheus Books
of 20,000 or so atheists at this past weekend’s Rally for Reason in Washington, D.C.
As the chant suggests, the protesters styled their event on the
National Mall (which was not affiliated with
Reason magazine in any way) as a “coming out” party
for atheists. One participant even carried a sign ripped off from
the heyday of gay rights demonstrations: “Hi Mom. I’m an
Atheist!"
The rally was advertised as the largest ever gathering of
atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and other assorted faithless
folks. The relatively young crowd was treated to talks, rants,
and routines by such faithless luminaries as biologist Richard
Dawkins, American Atheists president David Silverman, professional
skeptics Michael Shermer and James Randi, mythbuster Adam Savage,
profane musician Tim Minchin, and (via video) comedian Penn
Jillette. Off to the side was a small collection of Christian
counterprotesters (including members of the truly awful Westboro
Baptist Church) who assured the assembled nonbelievers that
Christianity’s loving God would consign them all to everlasting
fiery damnation unless they changed their wicked ways.
But it is not just Westboro Baptist kooks who dislike atheists.
Polls show that most Americans are uneasy (to say the least) with
unbelievers. Consider a Pew Research poll from June 2011 that
found that 33 percent of respondents said that they would be
less likely to vote for a candidate who was homosexual and 62
percent said that it would make no difference. For atheist
candidates, the numbers were basically flipped: 61 percent of
respondents said that a candidate's atheism would make them less
likely to vote for them and only 33 percent said it would make no
difference. A June 2011 Gallup Poll
reported that only 49 percent of voters would vote for a “well
qualified” presidential candidate who was an atheist. The next
lowest vote percentage went to a gay candidate for whom 67 percent
would consider voting. The good news for atheists is that the
trends are moving in the right direction: in a 1958 poll only 18
percent said that they'd vote for an atheist.
In fact, a side-by-side comparison of polling data finds that
tolerance for theological deviance is evolving slower
than acceptable of what used to be called sexual deviance. In
1977 a Harris poll reported that
55 percent respondents thought that gays should not be allowed to
be teachers but 80 percent said they could work in factories;
now 69
percent say it’s OK for them to be teachers and a later
survey finds that 89
percent believe that gays should have equal rights in
terms of job opportunities. Atheists as a group lag behind in
acceptance when compared to gays; a recent study found that
only 33 percent of respondents would hire an atheist as a day care
worker, but 65 percent would hire them as a waitress.
It’s no wonder that atheists poll so badly—religious folks
believe that the godless are about as trustworthy as rapists, at
least according to a recent study. In “Do
You Believe in Atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist
prejudice” [PDF], published in Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology in December. The
researchers reported that religious participants in the study
regarded atheists as being
more criminally untrustworthy than rapists. "Outward
displays of belief in God may be viewed as a proxy for
trustworthiness, particularly by religious believers who think that
people behave better if they feel that God is watching them,"
explained
University of British Columbia psychologist Ara Norenzayan, one of
the researchers on the study. "While atheists may see their
disbelief as a private matter on a metaphysical issue, believers
may consider atheists' absence of belief as a public threat to
cooperation and honesty." In a 2003
study [PDF], 48 percent (the highest of disapproval rating of
any group) of Americans said that they would disapprove of their
children marrying an atheist.
This distrust prompts one to wonder if believers really do worry
that people would engage in rampant murder and mayhem if they
thought that there was no vengeful deity monitoring their behavior
at all times. In fact, psychological research does
confirm that a lot of religious believers do tend to think this
way. In light of those fears, one prominent slogan featured on
placards at the Rally for Reason, “Be Good for Goodness’ Sake” must
appear nonsensical to believers.
Distrust of atheists has an long intellectual pedigree. After
all, Athenian philosopher Socrates was convicted for,
among other crimes, preaching atheism (which he artfully denied).
Eighteenth century liberal British philosopher John Locke is
thought to have jumpstarted the notion of the separation of church
and state in his A Letter Concerning
Toleration. However, even Locke believed that atheists
were not to be tolerated. “Promises, covenants, and oaths, which
are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist,”
he wrote. In addition, Locke asserted, “Those that by their atheism
undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of
religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration.”
Only believers have the standing to demand that their beliefs be
tolerated by the state.
“God and government are a dangerous mix,” warned Annie Laurie
Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation at the
rally. Believers especially would do well to keep this fact in
mind. Locke’s proposal for the separation of church and state was
an idea devised to prevent the legal domination of one sect over
other dissenting sects. As Locke well appreciated, mixing
government and God has proven to be a sure recipe for civil strife
and often war. The government should be secular, reserving civil
society as the non-coercive arena for religious practice and
contention.
Unfortunately, some politicians, most especially including this
season’s flock of would-be Republican presidential candidates want
to inject a little more God into government. Their loud professions
of faith may, however, be provoking a backlash among voters.
Another Pew poll
reported earlier this month that the percentage of Americans
who say that there is too much public expression of religious faith
among politicians rose from 12 percent in 2001 to 38 percent now.
Sadly, 30 percent still think there is too little faith-mongering
by politicians and 25 percent believe the amount is just about
right. Even better news: 54 percent now say that churches should
keep out of politics, whereas only 40 percent think that they
should express views on social and political questions. Back in
1996, 54 percent thought churches should meddle in politics and
only 43 percent wanted them to butt out.
Voters will certainly bring their religious convictions (or lack
thereof) into the voting booth with them. But what the
constitutional principle of separation between God and government
prevents is setting religious tribes against one another in a fight
over political favors and the distribution of tax dollars.
In its March 12 issue, Time magazine listed “The
Rise of the Nones” as one of the biggest trends in the U.S. It
turns out that fastest growing religious group in the United States
are Americans who list their religious affiliation as “none.” A Pew
survey found that 16 percent of Americans
are unaffiliated with any religious group; about of whom half could
be described as secular unaffiliated. Twenty-five percent of
Americans aged 18 to 29 are unaffiliated with any particular
religion. If this trend toward nonbelief continues, it’s going to
be harder and harder for believers to “hate” atheists because the
damned nonbelievers are going to turn out to be people they already
love and value, their children, other relatives, friends,
neighbors, and co-workers.
See the Reason.tv video, "What We Saw at the Reason Rally," by
my colleagues Joshua Swain and Lucy Steigerwald below:
Disclosure: I have been “out” as an atheist since by early
teens, and as far as I know I have never suffered discrimination
based on my lack of belief in an omniscient Sky God.
Ronald Bailey
is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and
Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available
from Prometheus Books
Monday, March 26, 2012
The Doctor Plays Cowboys & Aliens in Season 7
The Doctor Plays Cowboys & Aliens in Season 7:
The first trailer for the seventh season of Doctor Who leaked this weekend in bootleg form. Insanely, instead of futilely trying to take down an increasing number of copies on YouTube, the BBC just released the official one. Madness, I know! Anyways, I can't decide if this trailer is for one episode, or mostly one episode, or if there's going to be a two- or three-parter with a Western theme, but yeah, it's cowboys and aliens. I'd kind of prefer more stand alone episodes -- I think Moffat's biggest problem as Who showrunner is that he keeps doing these complicated, overarching plots and it's just bogging things down -- but at least I didn't see River Song in there, so thank god for that. As overused as the Daleks got in the RTD years, I'm with the Doctor: "Give me a Dalek any day." (Via The Mary Sue)
The first trailer for the seventh season of Doctor Who leaked this weekend in bootleg form. Insanely, instead of futilely trying to take down an increasing number of copies on YouTube, the BBC just released the official one. Madness, I know! Anyways, I can't decide if this trailer is for one episode, or mostly one episode, or if there's going to be a two- or three-parter with a Western theme, but yeah, it's cowboys and aliens. I'd kind of prefer more stand alone episodes -- I think Moffat's biggest problem as Who showrunner is that he keeps doing these complicated, overarching plots and it's just bogging things down -- but at least I didn't see River Song in there, so thank god for that. As overused as the Daleks got in the RTD years, I'm with the Doctor: "Give me a Dalek any day." (Via The Mary Sue)
Perez is first Mexican on the podium in over 40 years | 2012 Malaysian Grand Prix stats and facts
Perez is first Mexican on the podium in over 40 years | 2012 Malaysian Grand Prix stats and facts:
Perez is first Mexican on the podium in over 40 years is an original article from F1 Fanatic.
If this article has been published anywhere other than F1 Fanatic it is an infringement of copyright.
Sergio Perez scored his best result to date with second in the Malaysian Grand Prix.
It was the first time a Mexican driver has appeared on the podium since Pedro Rodriguez finished second in the 1971 Dutch Grand Prix for BRM – 19 years before Perez was born.
This was also the best result for Sauber as an independent team. They won the 2008 Canadian Grand Prix during their period of ownership by BMW, when they raced as BMW-Sauber.
They finished third as Sauber on six previous occasions, the last being with Heinz-Harald Frenzten in the 2003 United States Grand Prix.
Out of the 679 podium finishes for a Ferrari-engined car, this was only the third scored by a car that wasn’t a Ferrari. The others were David Coulthard’s third place for Red Bull in the 2006 Monaco Grand Prix and Sebastian Vettel’s win for Toro Rosso in Italy two years later.
Perez also led a race for the first time in his F1 career, becoming the 160th different driver to do so.
He started the race from eighth on the grid, the second-lowest position he has ever won a race from. He won the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix from 15th, but the less said about that race the better.
This is the first time he’s won the same race with three different constructors: he won with Renault in 2005, McLaren in 2007 and now Ferrari.
Team mate Felipe Massa had a dreadful race and finished 15th. Having failed to finish in Australia, it leaves him 19th in the drivers’ championship behind both Marussias: Timo Glock has had a 14th place finish and Charles Pic has a 15th and a 17th.
Pole position went to Lewis Hamilton for the 21st time in his career, giving him one more than Alonso and Damon Hill.
Despite starting both of this year’s races from pole position, he has only led for 14 out of the 114 laps.
Just two races into his comeback, Kimi Raikkonen has already added to his tally of race fastest laps. He has the third-highest tally of any driver with 36, behind Michael Schumacher (76) and Alain Prost (41).
Sixth for Bruno Senna was his best result so far. It gives Williams eight points, three more than they scored in the whole of last year.
Jean-Eric Vergne scored the first points of his F1 career with eighth place. He is the 320th F1 driver to score points.
There were eight different constructors in the points, one fewer than the record of nine set in the 2010 European Grand Prix when Red Bull, McLaren, Williams, Renault, Force India, BMW-Sauber, Ferrari, Toro Rosso and Mercedes all scored. We are yet to see a race with ten different constructors scoring points.
Romain Grosjean has completed just four racing laps so far this year.
Finally, Narain Karthikeyan equalled the highest position officially held by an HRT driver during a race. He was ninth on lap 13, a position he also occupied during last year’s Canadian Grand Prix. Pic also held eighth place for Marussia for one lap.
Review the year so far in statistics here:
Browse all 2012 Malaysian Grand Prix articles
Image © Sauber F1 Team, McLaren/Hoch Zwei
Perez is first Mexican on the podium in over 40 years is an original article from F1 Fanatic.
If this article has been published anywhere other than F1 Fanatic it is an infringement of copyright.
Perez is first Mexican on the podium in over 40 years is an original article from F1 Fanatic.
If this article has been published anywhere other than F1 Fanatic it is an infringement of copyright.
Sergio Perez scored his best result to date with second in the Malaysian Grand Prix.It was the first time a Mexican driver has appeared on the podium since Pedro Rodriguez finished second in the 1971 Dutch Grand Prix for BRM – 19 years before Perez was born.
This was also the best result for Sauber as an independent team. They won the 2008 Canadian Grand Prix during their period of ownership by BMW, when they raced as BMW-Sauber.
They finished third as Sauber on six previous occasions, the last being with Heinz-Harald Frenzten in the 2003 United States Grand Prix.
Out of the 679 podium finishes for a Ferrari-engined car, this was only the third scored by a car that wasn’t a Ferrari. The others were David Coulthard’s third place for Red Bull in the 2006 Monaco Grand Prix and Sebastian Vettel’s win for Toro Rosso in Italy two years later.
Perez also led a race for the first time in his F1 career, becoming the 160th different driver to do so.
Alonso joins top five F1 winners
Fernando Alonso’s 28th Grand Prix win surely must be counted as one of his best. It moves him past Jackie Stewart’s tally of 27 and makes him the fifth most successful driver of all time in terms of races won.He started the race from eighth on the grid, the second-lowest position he has ever won a race from. He won the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix from 15th, but the less said about that race the better.
This is the first time he’s won the same race with three different constructors: he won with Renault in 2005, McLaren in 2007 and now Ferrari.
Team mate Felipe Massa had a dreadful race and finished 15th. Having failed to finish in Australia, it leaves him 19th in the drivers’ championship behind both Marussias: Timo Glock has had a 14th place finish and Charles Pic has a 15th and a 17th.
Hamilton’s 21st pole position
Pole position went to Lewis Hamilton for the 21st time in his career, giving him one more than Alonso and Damon Hill.Despite starting both of this year’s races from pole position, he has only led for 14 out of the 114 laps.
Just two races into his comeback, Kimi Raikkonen has already added to his tally of race fastest laps. He has the third-highest tally of any driver with 36, behind Michael Schumacher (76) and Alain Prost (41).
Sixth for Bruno Senna was his best result so far. It gives Williams eight points, three more than they scored in the whole of last year.
Jean-Eric Vergne scored the first points of his F1 career with eighth place. He is the 320th F1 driver to score points.
There were eight different constructors in the points, one fewer than the record of nine set in the 2010 European Grand Prix when Red Bull, McLaren, Williams, Renault, Force India, BMW-Sauber, Ferrari, Toro Rosso and Mercedes all scored. We are yet to see a race with ten different constructors scoring points.
Romain Grosjean has completed just four racing laps so far this year.
Finally, Narain Karthikeyan equalled the highest position officially held by an HRT driver during a race. He was ninth on lap 13, a position he also occupied during last year’s Canadian Grand Prix. Pic also held eighth place for Marussia for one lap.
Review the year so far in statistics here:
- 2012 F1 championship points
- 2012 F1 season records
- 2012 F1 race data
- 2012 F1 qualifying data
- 2012 F1 retirements and penalties
- 2012 F1 strategy and pit stops
2012 Malaysian Grand Prix
- Perez is first Mexican on the podium in over 40 years
- Top ten pictures from the Malaysian Grand Prix weekend
- Vote for your Malaysian Grand Prix driver of the weekend
- 2012 Malaysian Grand Prix lap charts
- 2012 Malaysian Grand Prix fastest laps
Browse all 2012 Malaysian Grand Prix articles
Image © Sauber F1 Team, McLaren/Hoch Zwei
Perez is first Mexican on the podium in over 40 years is an original article from F1 Fanatic.
If this article has been published anywhere other than F1 Fanatic it is an infringement of copyright.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)