johnc

Borla XR1 Raceline.

Well, this thread made it to 11 pages. Hopefully I won't have to lock it now that we've gone this far.

How Europeans plan to fight Terrorism: http://www.gfn-ssr.org/edocs/lse_human_security_report.pdf How the Terrorists are fighting Europeans: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=37895

Makes sense to me...

http://www.alchemica.co.uk/conspire/

Horsepower in the US Brake Horsepower "Brake Horsepower" was a term commonly used before the 1970s and is sometimes also referred to as "Gross Horsepower." It used an old SAE standard (J245) to perform the measuring. That standard just focused on the measurement side, not the process itself. The term indicates the brake, the device for measuring the true power of the engine. Stating power in 'bhp' gives some indication this is a true reading, rather than a calculated or predicted one. However, several OEMs started to strip their engines of essential ancilliaries for the purposes of getting a high horsepower figure to use in marketing the car. SAE Horsepower As part of the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1972 (and also in preparation for it) SAE developed a new engine horsepower testing standard as part of its efforts to meet the new EPA testing regime. That standard was SAE J1349 "Engine Power Test Code – Spark Ignition and Compression Ignition – Net Power Rating Standard" and is pretty much in current use as SAE J1995 as revised. The standard specifies a basis for net engine power rating, and a method for determining net full load engine power with a dynamometer. A dynamometer places a load on the engine and measures the amount of power that the engine can produce against the load. Wheel Horsepower Since the release of low cost in floor dynamometers a new way of measuring horsepower has gained favor, "Wheel Horsepower." Its based on measuring a vehicle driveline's ability to accelerate a mass with a horsepower number calculated from the mass acceleration measurement. At this point SAE has not released any horsepower rating standards regarding the process, measurement, or calibration of floor dynamometers so the numbers published are not verifiable. What's Coming (from a press release on the SAE web site) "The current test, which originated in the early '70s and was last reviewed in 1995, allows automakers to claim horsepower and torque figures higher than what most owners will actually experience. The SAE Power Test Code Committee – chaired by David Landcaster, General Motors Corp. engineering group manager – is revising its standard for measuring horsepower and may suggest that automakers have an independent observer verify the numbers they claim for horsepower and torque. The standard will also set a procedure for how to test torque, which is also heavily advertised by car manufacturers." No.

It all depends on what you define as "decent." If you want something equal to a factory OEM paint job and the car doesn't need any body word, then yes, you can get a "decent" paint job for $2K.

Oh God! Kevin, I'll do your research for you: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0111290236nov29.story http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/su-sed120301.php http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/jan04/departments/washington/washington.html http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch7.pdf http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf WTC 7 collapsed for the same basic reason as 1 and 2 - fire. And I saw the NOVA show where the "pull" statement was made and it was in the conext of "what will you do with the building." It was not an immediate order to bring the building down. A few hours later the building collapsed on its own accord.

But, that's just an excuse for not coming to a conclusion. As with everything in life, you'll never have 100% of the facts needed to base a conclusion on. You have to go with what you know. Since we're using the JFK assasination as an example, I'm willing to say that based on the information available at the time and the information that is currently available, the Warren Commission came to the right conclusion. Now, if tomorrow the FBI releases a bunch of documents that make a bunch of unproven assumptions (the second gunman, Mafia involvement, Castro's hired assasin) factual, then I'm willing to admit the conclusion was wrong, in light of the new information. But, until that happens, I'm not going to worry and fret that Oliver Stone is right. I'm willing to risk making mistaken conclusions in hindsight. That's how Occam's Razor helps me sleep at night because applying it makes my conclusions "most likely correct."

How much a strut is shortened is determined by: 1. The expected static ride height. 2. The total stroke of the shock insert. Each brand and application shock insert has a different stroke length, overall body length, and body diameter. You have to look at those three things first to determine if the shock insert can be used in a 240Z application. If the shock insert passes that first test, then you need to check compression and rebound valving to see if those values are compatible with the spring/wheel rates you expect to use. Now, you get to consider price and availability.

OK, regarding the deficeit and taxes. If you download the spread sheet from: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/sheets/hist01z1.xls and add in a column to determine the percentage defecite or excess comparing government actual receipts to outlays, you get something like this (in ascending order from worst to best years): Year Total Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit(−) Percentage 1919 5,130 18,493 -13,363 -260.49% 1918 3,645 12,677 -9,032 -247.79% 1943 24,001 78,555 -54,554 -227.30% 1932 1,924 4,659 -2,735 -142.15% 1942 14,634 35,137 -20,503 -140.11% 1933 1,997 4,598 -2,602 -130.30% 1934 2,955 6,541 -3,586 -121.35% 1936 3,923 8,228 -4,304 -109.71% 1944 43,747 91,304 -47,557 -108.71% 1945 45,159 92,712 -47,553 -105.30% 1935 3,609 6,412 -2,803 -77.67% 1917 1,101 1,954 -853 -77.48% 1941 8,712 13,653 -4,941 -56.71% 1939 6,295 9,141 -2,846 -45.21% 1940 6,548 9,468 -2,920 -44.59% 1937 5,387 7,580 -2,193 -40.71% 1946 39,296 55,232 -15,936 -40.55% 1983 600,562 808,364 -207,802 -34.60% 2004est 1,798,093 2,318,834 -520,741 -28.96% 1985 734,088 946,396 -212,308 -28.92% 1986 769,215 990,430 -221,215 -28.76% 1984 666,486 851,853 -185,367 -27.81% 1992 1,091,279 1,381,655 -290,376 -26.61% 1991 1,055,041 1,324,369 -269,328 -25.53% 1976 298,060 371,792 -73,732 -24.74% 1993 1,154,401 1,409,489 -255,087 -22.10% 1990 1,031,969 1,253,165 -221,195 -21.43% 2003 1,782,342 2,157,637 -375,295 -21.06% 1982 617,766 745,743 -127,977 -20.72% 1975 279,090 332,332 -53,242 -19.08% 2005est 2,036,273 2,399,843 -363,570 -17.85% 1987 854,353 1,004,082 -149,728 -17.53% 1988 909,303 1,064,455 -155,152 -17.06% 1968 152,973 178,134 -25,161 -16.45% 1959 79,249 92,098 -12,849 -16.21% 1994 1,258,627 1,461,877 -203,250 -16.15% 1989 991,190 1,143,646 -152,456 -15.38% 1977 355,559 409,218 -53,659 -15.09% 1931 3,116 3,577 -462 -14.83% 1978 399,561 458,746 -59,185 -14.81% 1909 604 694 -89 -14.74% 1980 517,112 590,941 -73,830 -14.28% 1981 599,272 678,241 -78,968 -13.18% 1971 187,139 210,172 -23,033 -12.31% 2006est 2,205,666 2,473,298 -267,632 -12.13% 1995 1,351,830 1,515,802 -163,972 -12.13% 1972 207,309 230,681 -23,373 -11.27% 2007est 2,350,795 2,592,067 -241,272 -10.26% 2008est 2,485,315 2,724,284 -238,969 -9.62% 1908 602 659 -57 -9.47% 1953 69,608 76,101 -6,493 -9.33% 1915 683 746 -63 -9.22% 2009est 2,616,397 2,853,473 -237,076 -9.06% 1979 463,302 504,028 -40,726 -8.79% 2002 1,853,173 2,010,970 -157,797 -8.51% 1904 541 584 -43 -7.95% 1950 39,443 42,562 -3,119 -7.91% 1996 1,453,062 1,560,535 -107,473 -7.40% 1962 99,676 106,821 -7,146 -7.17% 1850–1900 14,462 15,453 -991 -6.85% 1973 230,799 245,707 -14,908 -6.46% 1967 148,822 157,464 -8,643 -5.81% 1964 112,613 118,528 -5,915 -5.25% 1955 65,451 68,444 -2,993 -4.57% 1963 106,560 111,316 -4,756 -4.46% 1905 544 567 -23 -4.23% 1961 94,388 97,723 -3,335 -3.53% 1958 79,636 82,405 -2,769 -3.48% 1966 130,835 134,532 -3,698 -2.83% 1910 676 694 -18 -2.66% 1974 263,224 269,359 -6,135 -2.33% 1952 66,167 67,686 -1,519 -2.30% 1954 69,701 70,855 -1,154 -1.66% 1970 192,807 195,649 -2,842 -1.47% 1997 1,579,292 1,601,250 -21,958 -1.39% 1938 6,751 6,840 -89 -1.32% 1965 116,817 118,228 -1,411 -1.21% 1960 92,492 92,191 301 0.33% 1912 693 690 3 0.43% 1949 39,415 38,835 580 1.47% 1911 702 691 11 1.57% 1969 186,882 183,640 3,242 1.73% 1998 1,721,798 1,652,585 69,213 4.02% 1906 595 570 25 4.20% 1957 79,990 76,578 3,412 4.27% 1920 6,649 6,358 291 4.38% 1956 74,587 70,640 3,947 5.29% 1789–1849 1,160 1,090 70 6.03% 1916 761 713 48 6.31% 2001 1,991,194 1,863,770 127,424 6.40% 1999 1,827,454 1,701,891 125,563 6.87% 1903 562 517 45 8.01% 1921 5,571 5,062 509 9.14% 1947 38,514 34,496 4,018 10.43% 1901 588 525 63 10.71% 2000 2,025,218 1,788,773 236,445 11.68% 1951 51,616 45,514 6,102 11.82% 1907 666 579 87 13.06% 1902 562 485 77 13.70% 1930 4,058 3,320 738 18.19% 1922 4,026 3,289 736 18.28% 1923 3,853 3,140 713 18.51% 1929 3,862 3,127 734 19.01% 1925 3,641 2,924 717 19.69% 1926 3,795 2,930 865 22.79% 1928 3,900 2,961 939 24.08% 1924 3,871 2,908 963 24.88% 1948 41,560 29,764 11,796 28.38% 1927 4,013 2,857 1,155 28.78% 1913 714 715 −* #VALUE! 1914 725 726 −* #VALUE! The formatting sucks but it shows that 2004 is comparable in loss for the year to other war years.

That's correct if you're approaching it via Kant, as you are. Basically you're say that there is no "one, true, factual reality" because everything we perceive is based on our preceptions. Again, pure Kant. I didn't say that and Occam's Razor doesn't either. It says that the explanation with the fewest "unproven" assumptions is the most likely. In keeping with my using the JFK assasination as a perfect example of Occam's Razor, I should have used the term "most likely" instead of "correct." In keeping with our use of logic terms, my summation is a theory that contains assumptions. And I disagree. We do have a say in this country and I've expressed my views on this in other threads. The recent CBS/Rathergate issue is a perfect example of how the "people" rose up and successfully questioned something that they were being "force fed." And in the spirit of Occam's Razor, all of these are unproven assumptions. And, again, going back to Occam's Razor, the theory with the fewest holes is the most likely one to be correct. But, if you subscribe to anti-Occam's Razor the theory with the most holes is the one we should focus on. A pessimistic view. I'm much more optimistic.

Basically, after I read the above four paragraphs a few times, you're saying that a person should use an anti-Occam's Razor to evaluate competing theories. That is a much less successful and little used logical method but it does have its adherents. The most well known examples of those methods are Wilhelm Leibniz, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Menger. So, basically, I'm using analytical reasoning as the basis for my argument and you're using perceptions and how those perceptions are perceived as the basis for your arguments. Am I correct?

Occam's Razor, being a heuristic arguement, cannot determine "cause." Its just helpful as a guide in selecting which theory is the one most likely to be correct based on the fewest unproven assumptions. In the JFK shooting, the theory with the lest unproven assumptions is the lone shooter (Oswald) theory. And, given the test of time (41 years), it appears that the lone shooter theory is still the correct one. EDIT: Sorry Jon, I answered it...

They all do $2K paint jobs. Unfortunately, there's $3K worth of body work and prep needed to get the car ready for the $2K paint job. Most folks forget that, like everythign else in the world, preparation is the key to success. If you just want paint applied, got to Earl Schieb, One Day, etc.

Nope. Occam's Razor is a heuristic argument. Occam's Razor is sometimes confused with Bayesian inference which is statistical in natture.

What Terry said is correct, but to simplify: The insert needs to be positioned so that its in the middle 1/3 of the total stroke available at your planned static ride height. That position is controlled by ride height AND where the top of the strut tube is in relation to the upper spring perch.

Santini's is good and I recommend them also. If Pete's too busy an equal or better shop would be Lanzini's in Huntington Beach. http://www.lanzinibodyworks.com Mitch Lanzini paints all the cars on the TV show Overhaulin' and does most of the paint work for Chip Foose's award winning Hot Rods.

I am always amazed by conspiracy theories and that they exist at all. A simple concept shuts them all down: Occam's Razor "...explanations should never multiply causes without necessity. When two explanations are offered for a phenomenon, the simplest full explanation is preferable."

I'll have to go back through my Fastracks. I seem to recall an end to the grandfather clause that let cars run with current out-of-spec roll cages (cages built prior to 1995).

And, of course, Microsoft is capitalizing on the whole thing: http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/005093.php

Not true. The Japanese fleet maintained radio silence the entire way across the Pacific.

Batman says, "All the way to Buckingham Palace! Notice my funny bulge on my right leg."

That's not a fact. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/pearl_harbour_03.shtml http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/14/fdr/ And from: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=40#OPIUM Please, please, please do your own research.

That's a great comparison John! Look what Russia is doing after experiencing ~400 casualties in a terrorist attack and compare it with what our Congress did (the Patriot Act) after we experienced ~2,700 casualties. This makes me feel even better about our country's restraint and democratic principles.