Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Re: Audio Precision System One Dual Domani Measuirement Systems

G

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Arny said:
Given the lack of effectiveness of bomb sighting and delivery in those days,
you needed a lot of big bombers to do any strategic damage at all.


I thought we were talking about Germany bombing the US.

We were, but you had said that a single small airplane would not be a
practical tool of war, and I was refuting that. IMHO a single stealth
airplane, seeming appearing out of nowhere 10 minutes from London
with an atomic bomb would have been a very practical tool of war.

Especially if the US public was led to believe that there was another
one headed for the east coast of the US, for example New York City,
Boston, Washington DC, etc.

Or if there were two such airplanes, one hitting New York from Europe
and one hitting L.A. from "Japan" (not directly, obviously), that would
have been the end of the war.

IMHO one of the big reasons that Japan surrendered after the second
atomic bombing was that they were unaware there was no fourth bomb, the
first having been set of on US soil.

If (again speculation) the US had not invaded Europe in June of 1944,
my original comment, and the Luftwaffe had both a stealth bomber and atomic
bombs to drop from it, the war would of turned out differently.

As for Germany stopping its atomic bomb development program in 1942, how many
times did Saddam Huesein start his and Iran stop theirs in the last 20 years?

Geoff.
 
D

David Looser

Jan 1, 1970
0
Geoffrey S. Mendelson said:
IMHO one of the big reasons that Japan surrendered after the second
atomic bombing was that they were unaware there was no fourth bomb, the
first having been set of on US soil.

You were privy to the deliberations of the Japanese government? I'm
impressed!
If (again speculation) the US had not invaded Europe in June of 1944,
my original comment, and the Luftwaffe had both a stealth bomber and
atomic
bombs to drop from it, the war would of turned out differently.
An awful lot of "ifs" there!
As for Germany stopping its atomic bomb development program in 1942, how
many
times did Saddam Huesein start his and Iran stop theirs in the last 20
years?
The US threw enormous recourses at building an atomic bomb, recourses that
Germany simply didn't have in 1944. They didn't have the recourses to build
a transatlantic stealth bomber either. The fighter (which of course never
saw action) was no more than a concept demonstrator, it didn't have the
range to reach the UK let alone the US, nor did it have the load-carrying
capability to carry an atomic bomb. How long would it have taken Germany,
already coming under serious pressure from the Red Army and seriously short
of fuel, materials and manpower to develop both?

David.
 
G

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
You were privy to the deliberations of the Japanese government? I'm
impressed!

Oh, come on. I said IMHO, and it was exactly that, an opionon of someone
born after the war, commenting in 2012 what they did in 1945.
An awful lot of "ifs" there!

Yes, that's why it's speculaton.

The US threw enormous recourses at building an atomic bomb, recourses that
Germany simply didn't have in 1944. They didn't have the recourses to build
a transatlantic stealth bomber either. The fighter (which of course never
saw action) was no more than a concept demonstrator, it didn't have the
range to reach the UK let alone the US, nor did it have the load-carrying
capability to carry an atomic bomb. How long would it have taken Germany,
already coming under serious pressure from the Red Army and seriously short
of fuel, materials and manpower to develop both?

I have no idea. What we do know is that the US accomplished most of it
through "brute force" (my words) by throwing enormous recourses (your words)
at it.

Germany may not of had the resources, but they may of had better scientists.
They certainly were years ahead of the Allies in rocket science.

As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944, and saying that things would
of turned out differently if it had occured a year or two later. Care
to speculate on what the Soviet Army would of done too?

Geoff.
 
J

John Williamson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Geoffrey said:
I have no idea. What we do know is that the US accomplished most of it
through "brute force" (my words) by throwing enormous recourses (your words)
at it.

Germany may not of had the resources, but they may of had better scientists.
They certainly were years ahead of the Allies in rocket science.
While we're correcting spelling that's "have had" said:
As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944, and saying that things would
of turned out differently if it had occured a year or two later. Care
to speculate on what the Soviet Army would of done too?
"Would have", or "would've" if we're being informal.

Isn't there a usenet rule that when you start correcting grammar or
spelling errors, you always make at least one of you own?
 
T

Terry Casey

Jan 1, 1970
0
As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944 ...

Is that what it says in American history books?

I think you will find that it was an Allied invasion ...
 
G

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Terry said:
I think you will find that it was an Allied invasion ...

I know, I was wondering if anyone was actually paying attention. :)

Geoff.
 
J

J G Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Germany may not of had the resources
^^
^^

have


According to the NOVA program "Hitler and the Bomb"

<http://www.pbs.ORG/wgbh/nova/military/nazis-and-the-bomb.html>

"This was not because the country lacked the scientists,
resources, or will, but rather because its leaders
did not really try."

According to "Hitler's Bomb" by Rainer Karlsch published in March 2005,
the NSDAP regime did succeed in creating a dirty bomb but lacked
the pure grade uranium required for a true atomic bomb.

<http://www.smh.com.SU/news/World/Hi...couldnt-drop-it/2005/03/04/1109700677446.html>
 
W

William Sommerwerck

Jan 1, 1970
0
There is a story (of questionable validity) that work on atomic weapons was
halted, because they were based on "Jewish" science.
 
J

J G Miller

Jan 1, 1970
0
Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

It is all to do with the inevitable consonant and vowel shifting that
occurs in dialects and languages, something like

formally he would have

can become he would avv

which becomes he would aff

which become he would of
 
G

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Jan 1, 1970
0
J said:
It is all to do with the inevitable consonant and vowel shifting that
occurs in dialects and languages, something like

formally he would have

can become he would avv

which becomes he would aff

which become he would of

A lot (which I was taught not use) of things have changed in the last 50
years and English has mutated. In my case, I don't really care, I try to
use what I remember is proper grammar, but sometimes I am behind the times
or fail.

You can imagine my shock the first time I read that someone was gifted a
blender and other modernizations that have occured in the last decade.

But, sometimes I am just being a wise guy because on the internet no one
notices, and one can break the rules, such as starting a sentence with but.

On that note on a local mailing list, someone asked:

"Many people have been recomending me to study to become a technical
writer. Does anyone know anything about it? Is there a demand in Israel?
Whats the pay like? How advanced does my English have to be?"

I wrote back "Your English is not good enough."

He never even said thank you.

Geoff.
 
D

David Looser

Jan 1, 1970
0
Geoffrey S. Mendelson said:
Oh, come on. I said IMHO, and it was exactly that, an opionon of someone
born after the war, commenting in 2012 what they did in 1945.
OK :)
Yes, that's why it's speculaton.



I have no idea. What we do know is that the US accomplished most of it
through "brute force" (my words) by throwing enormous recourses (your
words)
at it.

Germany may not of had the resources, but they may of had better
scientists.
They certainly were years ahead of the Allies in rocket science.

Just because they were years ahead in rocket science doesn't mean they were
years ahead in everything. For example they had nothing to compare with the
British "Ultra" code-breaking operation. Also they lagged behind the allies
with Radar. When it comes to nuclear science, many of their best scientists
left the country in the late pre-war period either because they were Jewish
or because they were unwilling to work for the Nazis. These scientists then
lent their expertise to the Manhattan project. The US atomic bomb
development effort was greatly aided by the contribution of scientists from
Germany or from countries occupied by Germany.
As long as we are speculating, I started this with the timing of the US
invasion of occupied France, June 6, 1944, and saying that things would
of turned out differently if it had occured a year or two later. Care
to speculate on what the Soviet Army would of done too?

Allied invasion!

Would have done about what? By 1944 the Red Army was on a roll which Germany
was unable to stop. Had there been no D-day landing then in my view the
Soviets would simply have gone on to occupy the whole of Germany, and
probably Italy and all the countries occupied by Germany as well.
Whether they would have been able to set up puppet communist regimes in them
(and keep them all in order) they way they just about managed in Eastern
Europe is another matter entirely.

David.
 
C

Chris Morriss

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don Pearce said:
Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d


Because it sounds like the perfectly acceptable word [would've]
 
G

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Roderick said:
I usually take it as an indication that the perpetrator only knows the
language through sound, probably because they have never got into the
habit of reading books.

It's also an indication that the person is a visual or aural thinker and
does not think in words.

A very common trait of creative people.

Geoff.
 
D

Don Pearce

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don Pearce said:
Why do people write and say "of"? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

d


Because it sounds like the perfectly acceptable word [would've]

Never mind what it sounds like. Does it make any sense?

d
 
J

J. P. Gilliver (John)

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael A. said:
[email protected] wrote: []
Madman Muntz put a TV in houses that otherwise would have had none
and they worked in strong signal areas pretty well. They were tough to
fix but they usually lasted long enough that by the time they took a
shit there were better cheaper sets widely available. He was not a con
man, but he was certainly a self-promoter. The term "Muntzing"
survives today in analog design circles.
Is that the reflexing someone mentioned, or just a general term for
cheap circuit techniques? I'm not familiar with the name, but (a) I'm in
UK (b) I'm not in the trade.

In a similar vein (though OT for UTB), Amstrad put actually useful - as
opposed to just gaming - computing into many homes and small businesses
where there would not have been any otherwise, especially with his PCW
(personal computer Word processor) series that included a printer. The
machines were often derided by others but provided computing - with
printing, so therefore actually of some use - at a low price. (In UK, in
I think about the early '80s.)
I saw some come through the shop in the early '70s. Even working,
they only gave grainy pictures in that area because the stations were
more than a few miles away. Other brands had no problem qith the
availible signals, even thought the closest transmitter was 30 miles
away.
Was it purely that they were deaf? If so, would they have been one of
the few cases where an external preamp (in the room, not masthead) was
actually useful (or were the noise figures of external preamps pretty
bad then)?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a
profound truth may well be another profound truth. -Niels Bohr, physicist
(1885-1962)
 
D

David Looser

Jan 1, 1970
0
FDR was a piece of excrement who was used by certain forces to
achieve certain ends. WWII could have been avoided,

Do you mean that the war could have been avoided completely, or that the US
could have stayed out?
but they wanted us
in it, badly. So the Japanese-who were brutish toward other Asians but
knew enough not to F with us and had no designs on our turf-were
systematically goaded into attacking Pearl Harbor. It worked well.

An interesting claim. Who do you claim was "goading" the Japanese? And what
evidence do you have to back it up?

David.
 
G

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Jan 1, 1970
0
David said:
Do you mean that the war could have been avoided completely, or that the US
could have stayed out?

FDR was pro-war (or anti-NAZI, depending upon your point of view).

The US had large anti-war (pro-peace) and fascist (pro-Nazi), and
isolationist (do what you want, just don't do it here) populations.
Combined they were enough to prevent him from joining the war.

The fact that the Japanese attacked the US, and (by accident) the attack
was a surprise gave FDR the excuse he needed.

So while it would of been likely that the US did not enter the war in 1941
if there was no attack on Pearl Harbor, eventually Roosevelt would have found
a way, or an attack would of happened.

As for the war not happening at all, if the King of England, who was a
fascist supporter had not been forced to abdicate, when Germany invaded
the Studentenland, he would not of declared war on Germany.

If Germany had kept its nonagression pact with the Soviet Union, and been
satisifed with Europe, there may not have been a "world" war.

Not likely, but a long train of "ifs" that were possible.


Geoff.
 
D

Dave Plowman (News)

Jan 1, 1970
0
As for the war not happening at all, if the King of England, who was a
fascist supporter had not been forced to abdicate, when Germany invaded
the Studentenland, he would not of declared war on Germany.

You have a strange idea of the power of the monarch in the UK. He would
have done as he was told or face the consequences. If he wasn't allowed to
marry who he wanted (and stay king), do you really think he could
influence something far more important like a declaration of war?
 
Top