MicroZED

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 16:58:32 +1000, "David Eather" <eather@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 05:30:44 +1000, <krw@attt.bizz> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:43:25 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:30:16 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
>>> <l4drou$itf$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>
>>>> What I wonder is why the Dutch and Danes and so on build their houses  
>>>> so
>>>> close to the Germans. ;)
>>>
>>> because it is further away from the americans.
>>> ;-)
>>
>> You just want to make it harder for us to come bail your ass out
>> again.
>
>You should spend more time look up the facts rather than the Hollywood (or  
>even the Western) narcissistic view of World War 2. For every 1 American  
>who died opposing the axis forces about 100 other people died doing the  
>same thing, including approximately 60 Russians and 20 Chinese. In terms  
>of percentages and in totals the major players, the US lost the fewest  
>people, suffered the least damage and endured for the shortest time. In  
>addition to that much of the war production help 'given' to the various  
>allies was actually sold for hard currency and debt agreements. The Nazi's  
>always saw the war as a strong emphasis on 'the eastern front' and the  
>western front was defended at half the troop ratio (nazi to enemy) of the  
>eastern front. These are all facts you can verify.
>
>America's role in WW2 was not insignificant, but it was one of many and  
>leader in very few aspects. America did not win the victory and certanily  
>not by itself. IMO The worst part is that narcissistic view that exults  
>the 1% and dismisses the 99% who in every way gave just as much and to we  
>all in the free world owe just as much.

Yep, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
You will need to have your ass bailed out again.  Dumbass Europeons.

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:16:25 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

>
>krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:29:04 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>> <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> > New York, LA and San Francisco are natural ports too.  But NY has
>> > never had a natural disaster like the hurricane of 2012.  Normally
>> > they blow out to sea.  It was a very unusual confluence of multiple
>> > fronts, low pressure areas, and high tide.
>>
>> Not so much.  Hurricanes are a fairly normal event in NY.  They insist
>> on building closer and closer to the water, though.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes
>
>
>That list is for the State of New York.

Irrelevant.  NY is a small target, and that list shows how common NE
hurricanes are.  It's been relatively quiet in the last few decades
(Global Warming, you know) so the NE has been very lax.  They simply
got caught.  It had been predicted or *years*.

>Most of them didn't really hit the 
>city.

Irrelevant.  Most gulf hurricanes didn't hit NOLA, either, but it was
only a matter of time until they paid the price for living under
water, thanks to the USG.

>A typical "hurricane" by New York standards, that did actually hit 
>the city, was Irene 2 years ago, when I saw one fallen tree.  Before that it 
>was a decade before a "hurricane" that was even that bad.  After Sandy there 
>was a fallen tree or two on almost every block.  Just finding clear streets 
>to drive around them was difficult.  In my lifetime before Sandy there were 
>no hurricanes that seemed like more than a heavy rain.

Also irrelevant.  Hurricanes are *not* unknown to the NE, contrary to
firmly held belief of the residents and politicians.  They got what
they asked for.
>
>A week after Sandy I heard a weird noise and went outside to see a scene 
>from Hitchcock's "The Birds."  Every tree for at least a one-block radius 
>was covered with crows.  The migration must have been disrupted.  After a 5 
>minute rest they all took off.

On 26 Oct 2013 00:57:18 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

>On 2013-10-25, krw@attt.bizz <krw@attt.bizz> wrote:
>>>Nah, it's the big ones that will be busted up the most
>>>small ones will survive if proplerly maintained.
>>>expect some surprises.
>>
>> Not so.  The resonant frequency of the large buildings is low enough
>> that they'll stay together.  At 10-20 stories, they're done.
>
>that helps with longitudinal waves, not so much with the vertical waves.

Wrong.  I'm going by what those who research such things have to say. 

On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:49:25 -0400) it happened krw@attt.bizz
wrote
nothing

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 08:54:06 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:16:25 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
><td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:29:04 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>> <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>> > New York, LA and San Francisco are natural ports too.  But NY has
>>> > never had a natural disaster like the hurricane of 2012.  Normally
>>> > they blow out to sea.  It was a very unusual confluence of multiple
>>> > fronts, low pressure areas, and high tide.
>>>
>>> Not so much.  Hurricanes are a fairly normal event in NY.  They insist
>>> on building closer and closer to the water, though.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes
>>
>>
>>That list is for the State of New York.
>
>Irrelevant.  NY is a small target, and that list shows how common NE
>hurricanes are.  It's been relatively quiet in the last few decades
>(Global Warming, you know) so the NE has been very lax.  They simply
>got caught.  It had been predicted or *years*.
>
>>Most of them didn't really hit the 
>>city.
>
>Irrelevant.  Most gulf hurricanes didn't hit NOLA, either, but it was
>only a matter of time until they paid the price for living under
>water, thanks to the USG.

The problem with New Orleans was the absurdly dangerous, poorly maintained 17th
Street Canal and the Industrial Canal, both manmade spears pointing into the
heart of the city. Katrina wasn't even a super severe hurricane.




-- 

John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com   

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME  analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>
> Yep, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
> You will need to have your ass bailed out again.  Dumbass Europeons.

They've even had genocide in the past 20 years and wouldn't do anything 
about it until we arrived.

And just like in 1939 they had enough military power to do it without us, 
but didn't.


-- 

Reply in group, but if emailing remove the last word. 

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:41:58 +1000, Tom Del Rosso  
<td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

>
> krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>>
>> Yep, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
>> You will need to have your ass bailed out again.  Dumbass Europeons.
>
> They've even had genocide in the past 20 years and wouldn't do anything
> about it until we arrived.

That's not true. In the breakup and genocide of Yugoslavia the EU were  
wanting to go but the US as part of NATO refused for domestic political  
reasons.
>
> And just like in 1939 they had enough military power to do it without us,
> but didn't.
>
In 1939? I assume you mean before 1 September 1939. The Holocaust hadn't  
even started. There were no camps set up for the sole purpose of  
mechanizing the death of the inmates and no one outside of Germany (and  
few inside Germany) imagined the coming genocides.

If you are referring to military action, why do you think Germany quickly  
defeated Poland, France, Ukraine and half of Russia? Did you think at all  
before posting that crap?



 

On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:01:28 +1000, Tom Del Rosso  
<td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

>
> David Eather wrote:
>>
>> America's role in WW2 was not insignificant, but it was one of many
>> and leader in very few aspects. America did not win the victory and
>> certanily not by itself. IMO The worst part is that narcissistic view
>> that exults the 1% and dismisses the 99% who in every way gave just
>> as much and to we all in the free world owe just as much.
>
> The main thing is that without us, the Soviet Union would have claimed  
> all
> of Europe and got the bomb first.  So they wouldn't be speaking German as
> people sometimes say.
>
>
A retreat from you original position to a hypothetical 'what if' that is  
probably a load of shit. True about (most of) Europe not speaking German,  
but the Soviets were like the Germans and not expending effort to develop  
a bomb. That change a little when they started getting information from  
the Manhattan project  and changed a lot more after the first 'practical'.  
But the biggest increase came after Truman had approved development of 100  
nuclear weapons (in response to the pentagon request for around 1000 of  
them) which was after 1945.

As it was the Soviet Union was almost spent by the time it reached Berlin  
and Stalin ordered the armies to stop knowing they couldn't be supplied  
and the economy couldn't withstand it. Without the US the Germans would  
have penetrated deeper into Russia and because of that it the march to  
Berlin would have taken much longer and both of them would have been bleed  
each other even more, giving the British and the commonwealth the time to  
build. The Soviets would have taken all of Germany but it is unlikely they  
could have taken any more territory and almost certainly not to France.

David Eather wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:01:28 +1000, Tom Del Rosso
> <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> > David Eather wrote:
> > >
> > > America's role in WW2 was not insignificant, but it was one of
> > > many and leader in very few aspects. America did not win the
> > > victory and certanily not by itself. IMO The worst part is that
> > > narcissistic view that exults the 1% and dismisses the 99% who in
> > > every way gave just as much and to we all in the free world owe
> > > just as much.
> >
> > The main thing is that without us, the Soviet Union would have
> > claimed all
> > of Europe and got the bomb first.  So they wouldn't be speaking
> > German as people sometimes say.
> >
> >
> A retreat from you original position to a hypothetical 'what if' that

MY original position?  This is the first thing I said about it.


> is probably a load of shit. True about (most of) Europe not speaking
> German, but the Soviets were like the Germans and not expending
> effort to develop a bomb. That change a little when they started
> getting information from the Manhattan project  and changed a lot

It also would have changed a lot when at least some of the scientists in 
Europe went to the Soviets instead of us.


> As it was the Soviet Union was almost spent by the time it reached
> Berlin and Stalin ordered the armies to stop knowing they couldn't be
> supplied and the economy couldn't withstand it. Without the US the
> Germans would have penetrated deeper into Russia and because of that

The winter would have stopped them in exactly the same way.


> it the march to Berlin would have taken much longer and both of them
> would have been bleed each other even more, giving the British and
> the commonwealth the time to build. The Soviets would have taken all
> of Germany but it is unlikely they could have taken any more
> territory and almost certainly not to France.

There would have been nothing in their way.  The British would never have 
been able to invade Italy much less France.


-- 

Reply in group, but if emailing remove the last word. 

David Eather wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:41:58 +1000, Tom Del Rosso
> <td_03@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> >
> > krw@attt.bizz wrote:
> > >
> > > Yep, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat
> > > it. You will need to have your ass bailed out again.  Dumbass
> > > Europeons.
> >
> > They've even had genocide in the past 20 years and wouldn't do
> > anything about it until we arrived.
>
> That's not true. In the breakup and genocide of Yugoslavia the EU were
> wanting to go but the US as part of NATO refused for domestic
> political reasons.

So what?  They could have done it without us.  NATO countries are not 
restrained from action just because other NATO countries don't want to go.

NATO shouldn't even have anything to do with it, because it wasn't an act of 
defense.  We made a big mistake by invoking NATO and discrediting its 
purpose as a defensive alliance.


> > And just like in 1939 they had enough military power to do it
> > without us, but didn't.
> >
> In 1939? I assume you mean before 1 September 1939. The Holocaust
> hadn't even started.

It also hadn't really started before we joined the war, so that's pretty 
irrelevant.

This whole branch of the thread could be chopped off where you said that the 
US wasn't so important because other nations lost more lives.  But that is 
no way to measure the effect they had on the outcome, so it's a useless 
argument.


> There were no camps set up for the sole purpose
> of mechanizing the death of the inmates and no one outside of Germany
> (and few inside Germany) imagined the coming genocides.

They sure imagined the coming invasions and did nothing.

You're focusing on the timeline of genocide as if that's the only reason 
they should have taken action.  I refered to genocide, but I don't see it as 
the only reason Europe should have acted.


> If you are referring to military action, why do you think Germany
> quickly defeated Poland, France, Ukraine and half of Russia?

Because they did nothing about it when they could have.  If they merely gave 
the appearance of having guts Hitler would have been arrested by the Berlin 
police chief.


> Did you think at all before posting that crap?

I thought I was talking to somebody else.


-- 

Reply in group, but if emailing remove the last word.