There were even cars before 1980 with airbags. Cadillac had driver's side airbags available in 1974, but there wasn't enough of a demand to warrant keeping the option in production. Also had anti-lock brakes in the rear available in '72 as well.
Re:It's a damn scooter
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
Are we talking -40 degrees Celsius? He'd have to be from somewhere in the Northwest Territories then. I'm not sure I've ever experienced anything colder than -30C?
ummm, just to let you know, -40C= -40F. It's the only place where the two temperatures are equal.
If it makes you feel better, my 78 Buick Electra had a factory Rochester Q-Jet on top of the mighty Olds 403 Small Block, 4300 Pounds curb weight, 25 gallon fuel tank, 190 Horsepower/310 Lbs/ft torque, oh yeah, It got 12MPG anywhere anytime
Consider yourself lucky to get something in the late '70s, my '82 Chevy Caprice has a dinky 2bbl carb on it's 267 small block putting out an impressive 115 horsepower 20 years ago, and age wasn't kind to this motor. For a 2+ ton car, 115 horsepower is not enough. Scarily enough, there were 2 engines offered that year with less horsepower than mine! '79 was the last year for a decent motor from GM in the big cars until the early 90's.
NJ has no DB (at least of DL photos). The photo on your driver's license is a mini-polaroid print. If you lose your license, you have to go to a DMV and get a new picture taken.
Not only do they not have a database of pictures in NJ, they don't even require you to have your picture on your license. You can renew it through the mail. Almost got me put in jail in Virginia when the trooper that pulled me over didn't believe it was real. Good thing I had the old one with a picture to prove it to him.
Big deal. I saw a discovery channel show about turbine powered cars developed in the 1950's.
If I recall correctly, they were made by Plymouth.
Why didn't they go into mass production?
I think they were killed off because they couldn't meet the emissions standards for the Federal Clean Air Act of 1966.
..NIMA experts believe they have identified the Mars Polar Lander. Furthermore, the source said that the lander appears intact on the surface, sitting atop its trio of landing legs.
How many probes can there be on mars to confuse the Polar Lander with? It seems like if they can see the individual landing legs, it can be identified as a probe, but do they really have to try and figure out which probe?
I'm confused. I mean, I understand that the bug is radiation-resistant. That's very cool. But, how does it 'reduce' the amount of radioactive Uranium, exactly? Uranium is an element, so I thought that it could neither be created nor destroyed?...
The actual amount of Uranium can't be reduced. What I think they mean here, is reduction in the chemical sense. In chemistry, a reduction reaction is the opposite of oxidation. Oxidation is the loss of electrons to the other reactants, in a chemical reaction, reduction is the gain of electrons. Oxidation does not necessairly involve oxygen. Check out definition 5a here. I'm not sure what they'd gain by doing this, though. Mabye the nasty stuff is easier to clean up this way?
Slashdot Mirror
If it's 9 minutes from Mars to Earth....
I thought it was more like 45 minutes for a signal to go from Mars to Earth?
There were even cars before 1980 with airbags. Cadillac had driver's side airbags available in 1974, but there wasn't enough of a demand to warrant keeping the option in production. Also had anti-lock brakes in the rear available in '72 as well.
Are we talking -40 degrees Celsius? He'd have to be from somewhere in the Northwest Territories then. I'm not sure I've ever experienced anything colder than -30C?
ummm, just to let you know, -40C= -40F. It's the only place where the two temperatures are equal.
If it makes you feel better, my 78 Buick Electra had a factory Rochester Q-Jet on top of the mighty Olds 403 Small Block, 4300 Pounds curb weight, 25 gallon fuel tank, 190 Horsepower/310 Lbs/ft torque, oh yeah, It got 12MPG anywhere anytime
Consider yourself lucky to get something in the late '70s, my '82 Chevy Caprice has a dinky 2bbl carb on it's 267 small block putting out an impressive 115 horsepower 20 years ago, and age wasn't kind to this motor. For a 2+ ton car, 115 horsepower is not enough. Scarily enough, there were 2 engines offered that year with less horsepower than mine! '79 was the last year for a decent motor from GM in the big cars until the early 90's.
One of the points of this journey is to become the first people to break the sound barrier without a vehicle.
The sound barrier was already broken without a vehicle in the Manhigh projects in the air force.
...the global scientific/engineering community still fully recognizes (atm)ospheres, mmHg (milimetres mercury), and psi (pounds per square inch).
Actually, mmHg is still metric(millimeters isn't an imperial unit). You're thinking of inHg, or inches of mercury.
[1 lbm(pound mass)]/[32.2 ft/2^2]=1 slug
nono, [1 lbf(pound force]/[32.2 ft/2^2]=1 slug
[1 lbm(pound mass)]*[32.2]=1 slug
NJ has no DB (at least of DL photos). The photo on your driver's license is a mini-polaroid print. If you lose your license, you have to go to a DMV and get a new picture taken.
Not only do they not have a database of pictures in NJ, they don't even require you to have your picture on your license. You can renew it through the mail. Almost got me put in jail in Virginia when the trooper that pulled me over didn't believe it was real. Good thing I had the old one with a picture to prove it to him.
Big deal. I saw a discovery channel show about turbine powered cars developed in the 1950's.
If I recall correctly, they were made by Plymouth.
Why didn't they go into mass production?
I think they were killed off because they couldn't meet the emissions standards for the Federal Clean Air Act of 1966.
..NIMA experts believe they have identified the Mars Polar Lander. Furthermore, the source said that the lander appears intact on the surface, sitting atop its trio of landing legs.
How many probes can there be on mars to confuse the Polar Lander with? It seems like if they can see the individual landing legs, it can be identified as a probe, but do they really have to try and figure out which probe?
I'm confused. I mean, I understand that the bug is radiation-resistant. That's very cool. But, how does it 'reduce' the amount of radioactive Uranium, exactly? Uranium is an element, so I thought that it could neither be created nor destroyed?...
The actual amount of Uranium can't be reduced. What I think they mean here, is reduction in the chemical sense. In chemistry, a reduction reaction is the opposite of oxidation. Oxidation is the loss of electrons to the other reactants, in a chemical reaction, reduction is the gain of electrons. Oxidation does not necessairly involve oxygen. Check out definition 5a here. I'm not sure what they'd gain by doing this, though. Mabye the nasty stuff is easier to clean up this way?