You mean analog/digital, not passive/active. An op-amp is just as much an active component as a microcontroller.

Actually, Earnhardt had been sim racing in the old Papyrus NASCAR sims, back before they went out of business and were reformed as iRacing. Earnhardt would probably be racing there regardless, he's just an enthusiastic spokesperson because he was interested in the sim and company already. When they invited him to alpha and beta test the software, it's because he knew a developer, loved their sims, and already had a home racing setup.

Dale Earnhardt Jr. competes in the NASCAR iRacing series (won by a Brit, Richard Towler) and several other NASCAR drivers use the service as well (AJ Allmendinger ran a race live on Speed, for example). Also, about half the IRL drivers use iRacing, as well as a smattering of other racers. It's just not rare enough to be interesting anymore, but if you want to find it, there's plenty of video online of pros running iRacing.

A car like this needs to be driven with confidence. For the wings to generate enough downforce to make the corner, you must be going fast. Some corners either need to be taken incredibly slow, or flat out in order to have enough grip. Heck, lifting off the throtle (especially in the first or last corners here) can send you into a spin as the car's weight transfers forward off the rear wheels. Without that confidence they either would have driven significantly off-pace or wrecked the car. That said, I agree that a test with a more beginner-friendly car might be reasonable. You could just look for Skip Barber racing school lap times for beginners, and check the time difference there (iRacing has the Skip Barber car, and all of the tracks they have a school at).

That said, the biggest difference between iRacing and other sims and games is that iRacing laser scans the tracks at 1mm resolution, so it has every bump and crack in the pavement, every tree as a reference point, and so on. Other sims get pretty close, but iRacing really does recreate every square centimetre of the track, not just something close based on GPS coordinates. It's good enough that many IRL drivers use it to learn and practice tracks, and Dale Earnhardt Jr. uses it to brush up on Infineon and Watkins Glen.

It has also been mentioned that a combination of jet-lag and possible food poisoning may have contributed as well.

IRacing is led by Dave Kaemmer of Papyrus fame, and iRacing uses the NASCAR Racing 2003 code base.

And if you're interested in how in-depth the sim is aiming to be, here's a fantastic video on the upcoming tire model that Dave is developing currently. Basically, he's not aware if anyone else has tried to model a tire the same way, using physical model predictions, rather than curve fits to test data.

passBall(player Passer, player Receiver)
{
if(Receiver.opposingPlayersBetweenSelfAndOpposingGoal.isLessThan(2)) {Receiver.isOffside = TRUE;}
else {Receiver.isOffside = FALSE;}
Passer.kickBallTo(Receiver);
if(Receiver.touchBallFirst == TRUE && Receiver.isOffside) {callPenalty(offside);}
else {return;}
}

But there's a difference here. I was speaking of faith in the nature of something. I know dogs exist, but I take it on faith that they truly care for their owners. It's one thing to say 'my dog saved my life', and another to say 'I know my dog would save me from a fire, even if he knew it would get him killed'. That's the kind of faith I'm talking about.

Semantically, I would call what you are referring to as the belief portion of faith, rather than faith in its entirity. I can believe someone exists and believe what they say without having any faith in their abilities or sicerity.

It's both, isn't it? It's both being faithful to your god's expectations, and having faith in their existence and nature.

To follow your example, I am both faithful (show fidelity) to my wife, and I have faith (believe) that she will act according to what I know about her.

That said, we're talking about personified entities, here, regardless of your diety or dieties of choice. They are more psychology (soft-science) than physics or math as far as understanding or 'prooving'. There's a reason why the Bible and Greek/Roman/Norse mythologies (and probably others I'm less familiar with) speak of emotions with respect to God and the gods behavior (anger, as a common example), rather than logical rules that one gets from the hard-sciences. As such, one doesn't need faith to believe in gravitational or magnetic forces, but does need faith to believe in God's compassion.

My thumb comes at such an angle that sometimes while attempting to scroll right, my thumb places enough force that the pad also goes up. This is particularly a hassle while navigating my Netflix queue.

Their competitors also do not provide matchmaking of any sort, so MS also provides UNDEF more multiplayer services in that arena. That makes the price increase worth it, right?

But if you look at Matthew 5:28, Jesus neither specifies married man nor married woman, which to me implies an expansion of the sin of adultery. Sure, initially it was defined as the 'mixing of seed', but that doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. And as I said below, if the act of lust itself is a sin then it follows that all forms of sexual contact would likely follow, as they almost necessarily involve lust. Alternatively, the sin could be against a woman's future husband or her virginity itself.

That said, Miseph has it right in this thread. Whether it is defined as a sin or not should not be used as a hammer to cause guilt. The barrier to sin is relatively low, so much so that we all do it. The message is not (or should not) be 'stop sinning so you can be saved', because it's impossible. Rather, it is a goal for believers, so they can act properly and respectfully towards others.

Put another way, nobody goes to Hell just because they got a BJ in High School. God just doesn't want his people exercising their sexuality outside the bounds of marriage.