Pop N Wood

With some front wheel drive cars that is the only way to turn them. Hard to believe they are more accurate then a bench lathe, or better yet new rotors. But just a guess on my part.

According to the book The Z Series Datsuns (ISBN 0-947981-02-0), Scarab produced "250 complete cars and over 4000 V8 Conversion kits". Says the cars were 'luxuriously trimmed, with leather door panels, deep pile carpets and Recaro seats, and exterior changes can range from a TransAm front spoiler with integral brake ducts to a big three piece rear wing, flared wheelarches and louvered bonnet vents." A Brittish book. Sounds like each car was custom built, so not sure how your would verify if it has been modified from "factory". In the picture in the book, the car even has "Scarab" sidemarkers that look like the old Datsun ones. Scarab was on the finned valve covers also. Says they also produced some ZX versions. An older book but gave this address for Scarab Scarab Automobiles PO Box 9217 San Jose, CA 95157 As long as I am typing. From the same book (an absolutely excellent, must have book for any Z person) "The original 240Z based Scarabs used the 327 cu in (5.3 litre) small block Chevy V8, balanced and blueprinted and developing 250 bhp. It was mated to a Borg-Warner T10 four speed gearbox with a Hurst shifter. Koni adjustable shock absorbers were specified, along with heavier anti-roll bars, Teflon bushings in the front compression struts and stiffer steering rank mounts. Tyres: 195/70 front, 250/70 rear, Pirelli CN36 or P7. Four piston front brakes were also recommended." "The results of this suprisinigly neat installation - the V8 fits snugly into the Z's generous engine bay- is a car that is fast, very flexible (maximum torque of the 327 is 360 lb ft at 3600 rpm) and untemperamental. Performace raches (sic) into the supercar class - Scarab's own fiures suggest 0-60 mph in 5.6 seconds and a 13.2 second standing quarter mile. Later cars have used the 350 cu in (5.7 litre) Chevrolet V8 and Scarab now offer a range of newly built up engines developing from 300 bhp to a turbocharged unit with 425 bhp" Anyone ever seen the turbo version? Here is a good link, with a contact name at the end http://zhome.com/rnt/Scarab/Scarab.htm Another good link, with good collector info (about half way down) http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/7808/tech.html

Maybe I am using too many big words for you. Was it not fair my turning your own argument back at you? Pertinent or not? I am having a real problem with people using the word “sheeple†to seemingly discredit other people’s arguments when they are incapable of providing anything other than generalities to support their own arguments. My guess is the majority of the "sheeple" remain blissfully ignorant of anything to do with the patriot act. One other thing. You might try taking a course on the constitution to better understand where the government, our government, derives it’s power. It really doesn’t matter to me what your beliefs are. If the elected representatives pass a law that is conflicts with the constitution, then they have violated the very contract which grants them their power. Probably 95% of the Patriot Act is benign, common sense procedural items that probably needed to be done anyway (check out the web site the DOJ created site to promote this very agenda: http://www.lifeandliberty.gov). But the other 5% does violate the spirit, if not the letter of the constitution. And I believe history will prove me right when the courts strike down those portions of the act.

It is better to die standing on your own two feet than to live on your knees. Or is it better to live standing on your own two feet than to die, period? Half full or half empty I guess.

In my experience, the “sheeple†are on the side of the patriot act because they simply don’t take the time to research things. What category do you fall in? You sure pick and choose which facts you want to believe. You say the economy works in cycles, yet Reagan and Bush are responsible for everything good, yet Carter and Clinton either got lucky or screwed things up. You also missed the point about the dot com bubble. I would honestly love to know what went right during Clinton’s presidency so we can keep doing it. But the dot com created a bunch imagined wealth. It had to have had an impact. I know my salary went up considerably in that period because of he demand for electrical engineers. Also Carter had the very real problem with the cost of crude oil doubling in 79. No way that will not cause an impact. George W, to some extent, has had the same problem compounded by the war. It is a massively complicated problem. The president has an impact, but can hardly be held even 50% responsible in either a positive or negative sense. As for the deficit, use a little common sense. There are numerous economic theories that say the government doesn’t need to maintain a balanced budget to stay viable. But at the same time there has to be some limit. What percentage of our yearly budget goes to debit servicing? Isn’t it double digits? How long do you think you could run your household like that?

Because I am lazy and don't like swapping out magazines at the range. More bullets makes for more enjoyable shooting. Why do some people have historically accurate civil war rifles and uniforms? Maybe they just like reliving a different era. I have friends who served in Vietnam who have spent a good bit of money to get the early Vietnam look in there AR-15's. People like that simply don't see any harm in it, so they tend to feel insulted when someone passes judgment on their hobby. The early assault rifle ban tried to ban weapons by model name. Took all of 5 minutes for manufactures to rename the models to get around the ban. So then Clinton et. al. decided to assign a point system. So many points for a bayonet lug, so many for a flash suppressor and so many more for a pistol grip. There were other things too. When the weapon exceeded a certain number of points, it was banned. But take off the bayonet lug and suddenly the weapon was "safer"? That is the absurdity of the ban. Weapons were banned because they looked "mean". There was also something about domestic content. Foreign rifles had to have a certain number of parts made in the USA to be legal. I have absolutely no idea what the purpose of that restriction was and it may not have even been part of this particular act. Then there was the high capacity magazine thing. Of course, existing magazines were grandfathered, so like said above all it did was drive up the price. People have different preferences in weapons. Some people like a lot of ammo, others like a lot of stopping power, others want a small, concealable weapon. My father in law is a retired LA cop. All he ever carried was a 6 shot 38 caliber revolver. A pop gun by today’s standards. Kind of hard to laugh at him though.. In his career he was involved in 5 officer involved shootings, firing a total of 7 rounds all “on targetâ€.

Don't get too hung up on pixels. The Mini DV tape is what limits how many pixels you can actually record. Even a meagapixel is too much. And I think the MiniDV has the highest bandwidth of the comsumer type recorders. The mini DV machines really do take good video in good light. The firewire link to the PC is absolutely painless. I bought a $100 DVD Burner. Burning the DVD's is about as dificult as writing to a floppy, BUT for some reason the DVD's burned on my POS burner do not read on other machines. The video software makes MPEGS which copy directly to a CD in my CD burner. These have worked in every DVD player I have tried.

The article in USA Today says the thing is big enough you can fit a Hummer in the back of it. It has a dump truck bed, so it is not totally useless. Hauls 12,000 pounds.

Two cheers on that one! Funny thing, I do. But I also strongly believe in limiting their effectivness to keep them that way.

Then somewhere in that process I am sure you take an oath or answer question affirming your commitment to uphold the constitution. You are not the only one who does such things. How do you reconcile that oath with your Oliver North interpretation of it's enforcement? Trust us. Cut a few corners in time of war. I have nothing to hide, so why should I fear the government? It's alright if we squish a few little people as long as we apologize for it afterwards. Are you people listening to yourselves? Why do we even have a constitution? It is NOT to protect the bad guys. It is a living document with provisions to be changed if need be. If you don’t like it, change it, but don’t pretend it doesn’t mean what it does. We have enough other problems with that attitude right now. We are not a nation of cowards. This situation simply does not warrant living in a police state. Once again an overstatement, but to listen to you people I can see how we can get there.

Apologies? We paid them reparations. How much more of a Mea Culpa do you want? Mistaken identity is not the issue. A flat out violation of constitutional protections by a nation at war. How is that not directly relevant? And yes, I mean “defeatâ€. As near as I can figure (and who knows what these nuts really want), the terrorists whole goal is to bring down our way of life. Like I said, I am overstating things, but aren’t we doing that when we knowingly turn our backs on our constitutional beliefs? You are unnecessarily limiting yourself. Why not avoid the funerals and not have to issue any apologies in the process? We are more than capable of doing both. Part of the problem was being alerted to the threat. I get a little peeved at the second guessers who want to blame someone other than the terrorists for 9/11 (not saying you are one of those, because you obviously are not). Before 9/11 we were a peace time nation (more or less). Now we are fully mobilized and alert to the threats. The fact that the courts will be the ones to overturn the act, and everyone knows it, must also show that those same people know it is a violation of the constitution. People keep bringing up past transgressions during times of war to show this is to be expected and thus somehow OK. I keep bringing them up as a warning so that we don’t make the same mistakes again. Just because we did it “wrong†before (a very subjective statement) doesn’t mean we should do it the same way again. One last thing. “Our current technology†is the one thing that scares the ever loving bejesus out of me. If anything we need to strengthen and better define some of our laws to better deal with how powerful the information revolution has become. You know one of these days I need to start on my V8 swap so I can spend more time in the other forums.

Oh no! Not another vast, right wing conspiracy! Funny how everyone is attacking poor Dan Rather for making up news to forward an agenda, yet they are planning on giving Michael Moore another Oscar for his work.

Guess I should start reciting my resume here and all I have done, and continue to do, for the defense of this country. Don't consider it relevant. IMO the patriot act is an emotional decision, and in a way an admission of defeat. I am overstating things to make a point, but an element of fact none the less. Why do we have to tolerate another Manzanar? How does apologizing for it years later make it alright? I guess I have too much faith in the strength of this country and our way of life that I just don't see the need to compromise either in the pursuit of "terrorists". That statement is just too nebulous and open ended for me. I don't consider this emotional idealism, but rather a rational evaluation of the situation. For some reason the phrase "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" keeps coming to mind. And I stand by my previous statement. It will be the courts that will strike down the offending portions of the act. The "government" will never voluntarily relinquish that much power. BTW. Bush is probably the first president who actually gave people like me a tax cut. Seems like the rich have their protectors and the poor theirs, but the rest of us in the middle just keep taking it year after year. While I appreciate the adjustment in my favor, I also wish we could do something about the deficit. Bush has to face the negative fall out of two wars and record oil prices while Clinton enjoyed stable oil prices and the imagined wealth of the dot com bubble. But I do hope Bush can see the difference in the economy since his election day and won’t be afraid to make unpopular decisions if needed.

Some interesting thoughts here. I like to think of this site as one barometer of public opinion. Someone said think with your head, not your emotions. Fear is an emotion. We can’t let it get the better of us. I think selectively interpreting the constitution is unforgivable. It is not a road I am willing to go down. IMO the current situation simply does not warrant some of the extreme responses. I know I am in a minority here, but I honestly have a greater fear of being victimized by a situation like Richard Jewel faced than anything a Mohammad Atta could throw my way. And I know I am really in the minority when I say it is unreasonable for us to think we can totally prevent another terrorist attack. There are simply too many nuts rattling around in the bottom of the can. So no, I don’t think we need to give up on the constitution just yet. More importantly, I don’t know that I would want to live in a world that is so strict that it could positively prevent another attack. This problem is not going away anytime soon. We need forgo short term cures in and take more of a long term outlook.

Rhino liner. They actually used that to "seal" the concrete in the new part of the Pentagon to limit collateral damage from flying concrete blocks in the event of a bomb. Amazing stuff

No, it doesn't. The "ban" never really did anything. Case in point, the rifle the DC snipers used was stolen from a gun store, where it was being legal sold during the ban. When Clinton was trying to put that law into effect, he commisioned (I think it was) an FBI panel to research the assault weapon issue. His own panel came back and said the US does not have a problem with assault weapons. Look at the small number of crimes that are committed with long guns in general, let alone "assault rifles" and you will see what I mean. He went through with a "feel good" law that banned certain weapons based upon a point system. So many points for a pistol grip, so many more for a bayonet lug. When the points exceeded some number, the gun was "banned". So leave off the pistol grip or bayonet lug and viola! The gun is now "safer". Go figure. About the only thing it really did was ban the manufacture and sale of new magzines with over a 10 round capacity. But there were so many high capacity magazines already in existance that this was a minor inconvenience at best. Drove up the price a few dollars is all, but didn't cut the availability. In fact, most gun manufactures will still ship "pre-ban" high capacity magazines with brand new guns.

I think I would park that thing until you get the exhaust fixed. Next time you might not get so lucky. Window seals will prevent fumes, but you have much bigger problems if you passed out.

jmortensen is correct. Mags that were manufactured before the law went into effect are still legal to buy, sell and own. You just can't make new ones. And I wouldn't worry about much changing when the law expires. It never really did much of anything anyway. This ad is pretty much proof positive of that.

You misused the word sheeple this time. Or does it apply to anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view? Why can't a thinking person be against this abuse of American ideals? The Patriot Act is Un-American and a violation of our constitutional principles. I am confident that once the hysteria and fear brought on by the September 11th attacks subsides, that our courts will see it as such and rescind huge portions of the act. Contrary to popular belief, the bill of rights was amended to the constitution to protect innocent people, people who have “nothing to hide or fearâ€, from abuses by the government. If the bill or rights doesn’t apply to honest Americans, then what good is it? Why even have the words at all? I am glad to hear your sense of fear allows you to freely give up your constitutional guarantees. I am under no such disillusions. Quite frankly, I don't trust your statement that this "will only be used to target those who SHOULD fear for their privacy". This administration may have the best of intentions. But who is to say that the next one, or some sheriff of Mayberry somewhere, shares your sense of fair play?

So why in God's name do you want the government involved in your health care?

In my opinion you answered your own question. Workman's comp is an absolutely classic example of how the government turns good intentions into a horrendous nightmare. Have the government provide a service as an act of charity. Before long, people start to view it as a "right" then something they are owed. Other people will work an angle, feeling no remorse at fleecing the "system". Politicians and courts get involved, ostensibly to protect people's "rights" and "fair share". The system grows, as does the bureaucracy needed to manage all the competing interest placed upon it. And before you know it, you need to hire a lawyer simply to talk to your doctor about your carpal tendon syndrome. Once you talk to the lawyer, he sues the government, gets you declared “disabledâ€, and viola! You no longer need to work! Not mindless paranoia on my part but a very brief summary of my mother in law’s current life. We are far from backwards in health care. When I see all of the Arab people arriving at Johns Hopkins in Mercedes for cancer treatment just confirms to me that we have the best health care system in the world. These people can afford to go anywhere, and their life depends upon it, so why do they come here? Because nothing is free. Everything costs money. The only question is who’s pocket is it going to come from? Who was the pundit that said “if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is free…â€? I want to take care of Americans also. I understand the “hidden†costs of the uninsured are simply passed on by the hospitals to everyone who can afford to pay. But you have to look at the whole problem and be realistic about what you can accomplish. Hillary is my worst nightmare in a politician. Some elitist who quite simply put believes she knows what is right for me better than I do myself. Why would any one be for someone so stupid as to believe her lying, philandering husbands problems are all the result of a “vast, right wing conspiracyâ€? Do you really want someone with such poor judgment representing you in congress?

Try again. From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5956557/

How did the guy's house pass away?

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/entertainment/gossip/9533189.htm?1c