|
They were talking about the possibility of Chris Evans taking over on Radio 4 this morning.
[Edit] my google fu has just resulted in me finding out that he has refuted this possibility.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Your initial opinion was that there was no way they would sack him and it would all blow over. Surprised to see how much it has changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't understand how people can talk about a minor celeb like Clarkson as if he were an irreplaceable asset.
He's just a prat who talks about cars. That's the easiest role in the world to fill.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Well it might be because he took a niche motoring program and created a £100 million cash cow which is the worlds most watched factual program.
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
No, he didn't.
It was the combination of personalities that made the show.
Of the four of them (including Stig), his is the most common personality type, and therefore the easiest to replace.
Another Clarkson-type could walk on, say something like: "Hi. I'm not Jeremy Clarkson -- mind you, he's a bit of a tit, anyway; I mean, he needed more than one punch!"
Everyone would immediately love him, and the tabloids would go on and on and on* about how the show had been saved.
There's nothing even remotely unique or irreplaceable about Clarkson.
* ... And on and on and on and on and on...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I think you will find that Clarkson was the "creator" yes the personalities worked but someone had to come up with the format.
as the stig has been replaced twice I would disagree
I get you don't rate him but most who like the show do, and I doubt its going to be easy to replace him
you couldn't use another tit the Guardian wouldn't let you
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you'll find that the other members of the team had very successful TV careers before Top Gear.
The only one who was not so successful was Clarkson himself, because he had nothing special to offer.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
only a national syndicated journalist, or the fact that he wasn't a TV presenter for kids TV or something somehow negates any other form of employment?
and he was a successful presenter of top gear in its previous format
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: He's just a prat who talks about cars. That's the easiest role in the world to fill.
Really? Could you do it? Do you have sufficient driving/mechanical skills and knowledge to undertake the role? I'm sure you could be scripted to be amusing - possibly.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I always fixed my own cars, no matter how badly they were gone, so I'm probably more capable mechanical-wise.
The trouble is that I have no interest whatsoever in cars, whether fast and overpowered or otherwise.
I've driven less than ten times, in the last decade, and then only when there was no other choice.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: I'm probably more capable mechanical-wise.
Really? I doubt that - changing spark plugs and draining the oil does not make you a motor engineer or mechanic. The money I made from people who thought they could rebuild an engine was very pleasant.
Mark_Wallace wrote: The trouble is that I have no interest whatsoever in cars, whether fast and overpowered or otherwise.
I have to admit that my interest has waned even though I raced for a couple of years, early on and spent about 10 years in the business. Now I just don't care - if something goes wrong I call the AAA.
Mark_Wallace wrote: I've driven less than ten times, in the last decade, and then only when there was no other choice.
What are you? A damn hippie??? 
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: Really? I doubt that
That's a very rude thing to say.
I have rebuilt engines from the bottom up, and repaired just about every type and shape of bodywork that exists.
Karel Čapek wrote: The money I made from people who thought they could rebuild an engine was very pleasant.
Really? I doubt that.
Karel Čapek wrote: I raced for a couple of years, early on and spent about 10 years in the business.
Really? I doubt that.
Not very nice, is it?
Karel Čapek wrote: What are you? A damn hippie???
Just someone who has realised that the car is not enough use to me to rate its cost.
That usefulness/cost relationship is, I suspect, also true for most people; they just haven't realised it, yet.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: That's a very rude thing to say.
Why? I doubt your story - I'm just being straightforward. There were always plenty of people getting their cards towed into my shop because they thought they could be a mechanic.
As for the rest - whatever.
Some of us have no choice but to commute by car - public transport here is ok but sparse and a bit grotty.
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: Why? I doubt your story - I'm just being straightforward.
Er, "straightforwardly" calling people liars is not entirely polite.
I pointed that out to you with equal straightforwardness, assuming it to be a cultural thing, but it now appears that you may not be able to take straightforwardness as well as you give it.
I suppose that we will all have to bear that in mind.
If you'd gone about saying the same thing in a roundabout or joking way, that would have been no problem, right off the bat; but you set a tone, and I simply complied with it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Er, "straightforwardly" calling people liars is not entirely polite.
I never said I was polite.
Mark_Wallace wrote: I pointed that out to you with equal straightforwardness, assuming it to be a cultural thing, but it now appears that you may not be able to take straightforwardness as well as you give it.
You may be as blunt as you wish: I will not get offended.
Mark_Wallace wrote: If you'd gone about saying the same thing in a roundabout or joking way, that would have been no problem, right off the bat; but you set a tone, and I simply complied with it.
As is your right - experience tells me that I (and other people I knew) got a great deal of work from amateurs who thought they knew what they were doing - as a result when people without proper training tell me they can do x, y and z to a car I tend to reflect back and say no, you probably can't.
Anyway, it is not my intention to argue or offend over such a trivial thing so I'll apologize and wish you a nice day.
|
|
|
|
|
This is the world's first hard drive, invented by IBM. It weighed over a ton and stored a whopping 5 Megabytes of data. Picture taken in 1956.
[First hard drive]
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine the laptop that went into!
|
|
|
|
|
I am old enough to remember a time when a hard drive was a long trip over bad roads!
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly, as do I!
|
|
|
|
|
What do you think that big silver thing was in the background?
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
The opening behind the box on the forklift is the socket for the Flight Data Recorder
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first one I worked on was the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC_FASTRAND[^] in 1967. Looked like two sections of sewage pipe one above the other, and hummed to itself all day (and night). The best thing about it was that you could hide behind it for hours.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
