dude you know some cool stuff
you racing any cross this year?
[quote=tarckeemoon]2012 is shaping up to be a fierce competition for worst team name.
What did Ligget/Sherwen do to deserve these team names? Surely naming them like this is going to limit their airtime. Pisses me off, I Was looking forward to Skil-Shimano riding Felt next year, now they come up with some computer-like acronym. Bullshit!
Well, there you have it folks: wiggins’s accidentally’d.
^^ as i read it (on cyclingnews), that name will only be used until next season when the new sponsor will share the name with shimano
Fair enough. Man, leaving Renshaw out of the Australian team. I’m glad an aussie didn’t win, just to spite them. Still, kinda boring result. Cav has already said he’s going to buy a Harley with the rainbow stripes on the fuel tank. Fuck this sport 
ugh that article
Lolz.
[quote=truckdoug]dude you know some cool stuff
you racing any cross this year?[/quote]
Yeah. I’m doing Blind Date, most of the Crusade, probably a couple others.
Jani to Astana. Good for that dude.
What? Whoa. He was supposed to be one of the in dudes on the super-mega-team next year. By that I mean “in” for hauling bottles during the climbs in the grand tours. Good to see him featured as a GC contender.
Yeah happy for him to get out of that mess.
^That.
Thought you’d like that.
Thought you’d like that.[/quote]
Yup. He kinda got dicked in the TdF last year riding for one-nut. He got beat up pretty bad by crashes this year. Hasn’t done much since the Dauphine but the kid is light and makes great power.
Oh shit.
Cav to Omega-Pharma/QuickStep?
"Specialized Bicycles. World Champions Demand Our Shit."©§
[quote=euclid]Here it it:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0Bx9X7reVsg3gYjlmMTIzY2EtMmM0Mi00ZTQxLWFkOTUtNTRlMTgzMWE2N2My&hl=en_US[/quote]
This took me a while to get, but once it clicked I was fascinated. I still don’t understand how the direction of the film can affect the direction of the racers, though.
Think about how the film is in a way traveling “across” the fixed space the camera frames. As the film runs across this fixed frame, the image is continually created in that same horizontal motion. All of the imagery you see here was made within the same couple inches of the track; the motion and distance between the runners you perceive is because the imagery was created at different times. Because the film is moving at about the same pace as the runners, each runner is “caught” on a slightly different piece of film. But because the cameras frame is fixed and much smaller than the overall “picture” the motion perceived in the total photo is created by the film’s movement, not the runners. Does that make sense at all? It’s hard to explain.
It might help to imagine the photo being made not with a continually moving piece of film, but as chunks of imagery. The direction of the film’s movement determines in which direction the “chunks” are stacked one after another. [frame]<-ABCDEFG (moving right to left) vs. GFEDCBA->[frame] (moving left to right)
If the film were moving the opposite direction of the runners, that would be a very different image.
Seems a bit like slit-scan photography, although the setup is a bit different.
(Metamorphose by Frederick Fontenoy)
Slit-scan is also an old-school film technique for distorting images, done one frame at a time, seen in the psychedelic sequence in 2001, the Star wars opening crawl, Dr. Who opening credits, etc.