Da traduttori professionisti, imprese, pagine web e archivi di traduzione disponibili gratuitamente al pubblico.
it is perhaps the most influential motorcycle movement the world has ever seen. born in the streets of england in the 1950s, its culture still thrives around the globe. there will never be another motorcycle—or rider—quite like it. and yet, most of us have never heard of the café racer. the café racer is both man and machine. with its spartan appearance and aggressive styling, the café racer is one of the most distinctive and revered motorcycles in the world. their impact on the motorcycle industry includes legendary high-performance motorcycles like triumph’s bonneville, honda’s cb-750, and kawasaki’s z-1. without the original café racers tuning and designing their ordinary street bikes for power and handling, manufacturers may never have designed the modern sportbike. the café racer movement may have been born in london in the 1950s, but it has developed into a subculture encompassing a desire for speed, a love of rock and roll, and ultimately an enduring love for a motorcycle that’s being revived worldwide. the human side of the café racer was a perfect match for this type of motorcycle. the riders of these machines were young, and they wanted to go fast. the goal of many of the café racers during the 50s was the ability to hit a hundred miles an hour, better known as “the ton.” author and journalist mike seate has been following the café racer for two decades. discovery-hd-theater-cafe-racer-caferacer-tv-vintage-motorcycles-ace-cafe-london-rockers-59club-norton-triumph-triton-honda-historic-phot-16“the term café racer came from what’s actually a derisive term used to describe kids who hung out in cafés and raced fast. they would hang out in transport cafés and wait until somebody else came by on a fast bike and challenged them for a race, and they all rushed outside to see who gets up the road the fastest. when they get back to the cafés, which were often occupied by long distance truck drivers, the truck drivers would laugh and say, ‘you’re not a real racer, you’re not barry sheen, you’re just a café racer! and the kids thought, ‘well you’re damn right i’m a café racer!’ so they would race to the next café, and then to the next one as fast as they could, and the name stuck; they embraced it despite the fact that it was a derisive term,” he said. one of the birthplaces of the café racer was london’s ace café. the ace was one of many cafés that provided a gathering place for teenagers and their motorcycles in the 1950s and 60s. many, like the busy bee and café rising sun have succumbed to the wrecking ball, while others, such as jack’s hill and squires coffee bar have survived, hosting annual ton-up reunions each year. avid motorcyclist mark wilsmore, who reopened the ace café to its former glory in 1994, says that rock and roll helped spark the subculture known as “ the café racing.” discovery-hd-theater-cafe-racer-caferacer-tv-vintage-motorcycles-ace-cafe-london-rockers-59club-norton-triumph-triton-honda-historic-photos-“these kids over here, they have been the generation—rock and roll generation—they went out and bought the fastest vehicle they could afford, which over here was a motorbike. in the states, that was a car, and you had your hot rod culture come directly out of elvis presley and that lot, but over here, we had a similar sort of thing, but all based around motorbikes because of our different income levels. and the other great attraction of cafés, and i suspect diners in the states at that time, was the jukebox. and certainly in this country, when rock and roll first came around in the mid-50s you could only hear rock and roll on the jukebox. there was no radio stations playing it, no clubs playing it, so this new music of youngsters mixed with having their own vehicles and their own identity, um, along comes this ton-up boy and his bike, the café racer, it was invariably—the racing would be from one café to another,” he said. the hunger to make their ordinary streetbikes go faster and resemble the machines ridden by british racing heroes like mike hailwood and geoff duke was all part of the café racer’s character. doing the “ton,” or hitting a hundred miles-an-hour, became a badge of honor—weather you made it back…or not. riders from those days say attempts at reaching the “ton” on your average 650cc parallel twin were dodgy affairs at best. riders could consider themselves very, very lucky to reach it as their engines had to be tuned well, but even the best engines could out-perform the skinny, bias-ply tires and meager drum brakes of mid-century design. road surfaces were not what they are today, with everything from poor road lighting to axle grease from cars and trucks making each corner a potential deathtrap. trial and plenty of error was the order of the day and the rockers, experimenting with countless performance modifications, came to create motorcycles that are still respected by go-fast aficionados. brave? crazy? brilliant visionaries? addicted to kicks? the rockers were, and are, all of the above, which is why the café racer culture still lives not only in the streets on london, but across the globe. enthusiasts of all ages are once again building custom high-performance motorcycles out of their garages, machines that continue the tradition of the café racer. join us for discovery hd theater’s “café racer tv” as we explore this rich history and the quest to “do the ton.
Ultimo aggiornamento 2016-02-25
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
one night i stand i remind of you our hope and dream tears in my eyes when you gone so fast when i realized you know ican be perfect i faal from you you make me like i cant stand with you you make me like i cant live with you i cant hold your hand so please dont let me down i try to be a stronger when i know everything over everytime i feel everday i think i never see you once again i know i cant be stronger even i try to forget you oh no i missing you i need its you so please dont make me feel like.. i keep you in my heart i miss your smile i miss your face i need you hear i need your hugs in every night in everyday like you want me to be i miss you voice i miss your laugh i need yor hear i need your hug in everynight in everyday is youkemiskinan
one night i stand i remind of you our hope and dream tears in my eyes when you gone so fast when i realized you know ican be perfect i faal from you you make me like i cant stand with you you make me like i cant live with you i cant hold your hand so please dont let me down i try to be a stronger when i know everything over everytime i feel everday i think i never see you once again i know i cant be stronger even i try to forget you oh no i missing you i need its you so please dont make me feel like.. i keep you in my heart i miss your smile i miss your face i need you hear i need your hugs in every night in everyday like you want me to be i miss you voice i miss your laugh i need yor hear i need your hug in everynight in everyday is yougoogle translation english indonesi
Ultimo aggiornamento 2013-10-27
Frequenza di utilizzo: 1
scientevid learning originally posted by ocelot hi radrook, thanks once again for your response. indeed i was just checking that i'd located the one article amongst many that you thought addressed my claim. as i detailed, it doesn't. well actually some people do make that claim. i've seen much talk from various brands of creationist that claim that macroevolution (evolution of new taxa of the species level and above) is impossible. they use similar arguments as you do so please forgive me for my presumption. i do apologise. of course the fact that new species have been observed to evolve both in the lab and in the wild, make this claim one of the more ridiculous creationist claims but it is nonetheless one that i have encountered. i asgee that speciation does and has occurred. it's interesting to me that you have raised the bar. you accept that not all individual species need to have been created. presumably you accept that lions, tigers and the domestic cat all have a common ancestor? am i correct in my estimation of your beliefs. yes. if so do you also accept the more controversial conclusion that homo sapiens has a common ancestor with chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang utans. it may be more controversial for it's broad implications to theology and philosophy but perhaps because of this added interest it is a conclusion backed by even greater quantities of genetic evidence. no, that's where we diverge. of course the genetic evidence that all placental mammals share a common ancestor more recent than the one they share with marsupials is as compelling as the evidence for a common ancestor amongst other genus, family, order or classes. if your theory is true, it would be interesting to see if the genetic evidence could tell us what the original common ancestors were beyond which we can find no further link. for example lets take for want of a better choice a red kangaroo named charles. you and i both agree that charles shares a common ancestor with all other red kangaroos, the genetic evidence backs this up. i see no reason to object. according to the genetic evidence charles also shares a more distant common ancestor with other species of kangaroo such as grey kangaroos, and antilopine kangaroos. ok. the genetic evidence suggests that further back in time these kangaroos shared a common ancestor with a variety of other species of kangaroo, wallaby and walleroo of the macropus genus. would you agree? sure. if so then the genetic evidence further indicates that the macropus genus shares a common ancestor with all other members of the macropod family including various other kangaroos and wallabies, the quokka and pademelons. would you agree that these are all of the same "kind" sharing a common ancestor. that might be acceptable. if so then the genetic evidence indicates that the macropod family share a more distant common ancestor with all members of the order diprodontia. this includes possums koalas and wombats. is it conceivable to you that the genetic evidence is correct and that these creatures all share a common ancestor with one another? could they all be of the same "kind"? if they are of the same kind. in fact could all the australidelphia super order of marsupials share a common ancestor as the genetic evidence would suggest, if so are they collectively a "kind" or do they, as the empirical evidence would suggest, all share a common ancestor with all other marsupials. are marsupials a kind? i presume that you do not accept that some time in the cretaceous there was an early mammal type reptile or therapsid from whom both you and charles can claim lineage. however how do you explain why when the genetic evidence is so clear? because i believe that the data is being interpreted to fit into a preconceived notion. it doesn’t matter where you place the bar, the genetic evidence is clear, there is only one "kind" currently on planet earth we are all descended from the same single common ancestor. i too have no problem when seriously considering a theory of intelligent design that the designer might choose to vary their techniques. what i have a problems with is why the techniques should so closely match a picture of common descent with particular variations being more closely clustered amongst species that appear to be more closely related. creationists did not make this prediction. evolutionary biologists did. the examination of the evidence continues to uphold the prediction of the evolutionary biologists. unless creationism can explain this remarkable coincidence it is deficient as a theory. i'm afraid your meaning here is not entirely clear to me. however the assumption that evolution is true is rather the point. if you make that assumption you make a prediction that turns out to be true. if you don't make that assumption you need an alternative explanation for the prediction. i offer the analogy once more. if you assume that i am related to my son you will expect a roughly 50% match between the various genes in highly variable alleles. if you do not make that assumption and otherwise find the 50% match you must find another explanation (perhaps we are brothers...) if you find more genetic matches amongst placental mammals than between placental mammals and marsupials this is explained by assuming that placental mammals sharing a more recent common ancestor amongst themselves than the one they might share with marsupials. if you reject that assumption then it would benefit your case to offer an alternative that fits the known facts at least as well. i agree that certain animals share more genetic material in common than other kinds. as i said previously, some of that sharing is due to a common ancestor called a kind in genesis. what i don't agree with is the transformation of one kind into another or that all living things are ultimately related. or that my ancestor was a one celled creature which slowly turned into a fish, and later into a reptile, and later into some type of piglike animal as the evolutionist interpretations of data say. not simply because it is repulsive thought, but because it all depends on a mindless process which i and most human beings on this earth, including human beings who are scientists, find unbelievable due to its inherent improbability and based on the cause and effect phenomena we perceive which indicates that machinelike complex things do not make themselves but are the product of mind or else are programmed to replicate themselves by a mind. hi again radrook, it's good to hear back from you. this appears to be a derail from my original question of how do you account for the genetic evidence of common descent if not through common descent. originally posted by radrook it's not the frequency it's the mutation process itself that is a dubious choice for the organization of complex organisms. originally posted by radrook i never denied the occurrence of neutral or beneficial mutations. it is the unlikelyhood of a mindless process with its high probability of being harmful to an organism being said to ultimately lead to the intricate organization as is evident in the human eye with its iris, to adjust the entry of light, the lens to focus that light, on a screen called the retina which is connected to an optic nerve, which reacts to the radiation by coding it into neural impulses, which in turn arrives at a specialized part of the brain which can decode those impulses and turn them into the perception of images. sorry but in the presence of such strong evidence to the contrary, i just can't buy into the mindless mutation explanation first let me congratulate you on your acceptance of the existence of small positive mutations. this is a major step towards your understanding of what evolution is truly about. it is a step that some creationists are not prepared to make even in the face of reproducible empirical evidence. it appears that you are not sufficiently aware of the intricate complexity that can be produced by undoubtedly mindless processes. snowflakes, have complexity, a rock arch has irreducible complexity, the water cycle is a steam engine. there is nothing you have demonstrated to be beyond the reach of a mindless process. are you familiar with john conway's game of life. draw a random pattern in this very simple purely mechanical 2d universe. the odds that within a few generations you'll see a small glider pattern. it looks designed but you know that you didn't design it. genetic recipes for life allow new increases in complexity to build upon previous ones. this allows many small mutations to add up to a bigger one. as such it offers us the possibility for a pinnacle of "mindless design" it is in fact so good at design that genetic algorithms have been put to good use by human designers in computer simulations. for example a genetic algorithm produces a shape which is tested virtually for various structural properties. those algorithms which produce the best designs are then used as the seeds for the next generation of designs. it is not uncommon for such a mindless process to produce "designs" superior in structural efficiency to any of intelligent origin. what evolutionary theory accepts can never evolve is a feature than cannot be broken down into many small neutral or positive stages. the discovery of such a feature would indeed be a problem for evolution. however it is difficult to demonstrate that a feature could not be the result of an appropriate evolutionary path. to do so would probably require examination of an infinite number of possible paths. instead we get argument for incredulity: "i cannot see how this feature could have evolved, therefore it could not have evolved." i'm sure you don't need me to point out the flaw in this logic. in all cases that i'm aware of, biologists have made progress in discovering possible evolutionary paths for the formation of seemingly problematic features. you bring up the example of the eye as one candidate. this has of course been much discussed and i'm surprised that you do not acknowledge that the solution to this apparent conundrum has already been provided. in fact it was a topic discussed by darwin himself, who also provided a solution. from here the gradual steps listed are briefly... • photosensitive cell • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin • pigment cells forming a small depression • pigment cells forming a deeper depression • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape • muscles allowing the lens to adjust from the same page you can find links detailing how each stage has been observed in the natural world. since you accept that small positive mutation can occur and be subject to natural selection it should now be clear to you that the evolution of the eye can be broken down into a series of such steps.
english translation into indonesian
Ultimo aggiornamento 2014-10-27
Frequenza di utilizzo: 2
Attenzione: contiene formattazione HTML nascosta
Alcuni contributi umani con scarsa rilevanza sono stati nascosti.
Mostra i risultati con scarsa rilevanza.