| |
 |
Tuesday, June 21, 2005 |
Charges against the Michelin chicken-shit teams
The charges given are that, according to the FIA, each team:
- failed to ensure that they had a supply of suitable tyres for the race
- wrongfully refused to allow their cars to start the race
- wrongfully refused to allow their cars to race, subject to a speed restriction in one corner which was safe for such tyres as they had available
- combined with other teams to make a demonstration damaging to the image of Formula One by pulling into the pits immediately before the start of the race
- failed to notify the stewards of their intention not to race, in breach of Article 131 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.
Article 131 states: "The starting grid will be published four hours before the race. Any competitor whose car(s) is (are) unable to start for any reason whatsoever (or who has good reason to believe that their car(s) will not be ready to start) must inform the stewards accordingly at the earliest opportunity and, in any event, no later than 45 minutes before the start of the race.[per thou] I really hope they get the book thrown out at them, I hope they have to pay the fans that were cheated (16 million$) and I hope their sponsor makes them pay for all the expenses on the fail weekend. I hope some of them go bankrupt because of this. They want to breakaway from F1, let them do it! I do not want them.
3:10:24 PM 
|
|
Behind the scenes, most of the drivers still wanted to race and our own David Coulthard was very definitely one of them, as was Juan Pablo Montoya, who was literally crying in frustration that he could not race in front of the huge contingent of Colombian fans who had made the trip from his home country.
3:04:04 PM
|
|
This song is dedicated to everyone who decided not to run the Indy race last sunday, having the option to do it.
8:35:55 AM
|
|
CardSystems should not have retained stolen customer data. Late last week, MasterCard announced that tens of thousands of credit card numbers had been stolen from a payment processor. Now it turns out that the processor in question should not have retained the stolen data in the first place. By eric@arstechnica.com (Eric Bangeman). [Ars Technica]
Typical. The Card issuer wants to treat the card number both as an identifier and as a secret. But you can't have it both ways. You can't print the number on the card, record it in the magnetic strip and then pretend it is a secret. Any data needed to process payments should be consider owned by the processor. It would be better if the Card issuer control security of the payment processor for real, instead of pretending they don't gave anything to do.
8:15:22 AM
|
|
© Copyleft 2005 Alfredo Octavio.
|
|
|
|
Diccionario RAE (Click Here)