On 13 Nov 2024 05:04:17 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

> On 2024-11-12, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On 12 Nov 2024 04:52:07 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:
>>
>>> A few decades ago, I was informed of at least one case where do-gooders
>>> had left hay for an overpopulation of deer. The deer continued to die.
>>> Analysis showed the deer starved to death with full stomachs, because
>>> their digestive systems lacked the enzymes to digest the types of hay
>>> that were being left for them.
>>
>> And cellulose is cellulose. Whatever plant source the herbivore gets it
>> from, it’s going to get digested.
>
> 6th and 7th paragraphs of this article:
> https://cpw.state.co.us/news/01132022/cpw-warns-public-dangers-illegally-feeding-wildlife

Even feeding hay can harm deer. In some cases, deer given grass
hay have starved to death with full stomachs because the hay did
not provide the balanced nutrition the deer needed.

Note that mention of “balanced nutrition”, not “lacked the enzymes to
digest the types of hay”.

In other cases, deer given alfalfa hay died from bloating when the
alfalfa created froth in the stomach.

This is a well-known issue with alfalfa, I think it affects cattle and
sheep as well (both of which are popularly farmed here in NZ).

> 9th paragraph:
> https://animalrangeextension.montana.edu/wildlife/private_land_wildlife_mgmt/winter-deer-feeding.html

Feeding deer hay or corn can kill them, because they cannot always
digest it. Deer digestion involves protozoa and bacteria that help
break down food. Different micro-organisms help digest different
types of vegetation. If a deer has been feeding on aspen or
willows, it has built up the micro-organisms that digest only this
kind of vegetation. If this same deer suddenly fills its stomach
with corn or hay, it may not have enough of the corn- and
hay-digesting micro-organisms in its stomach to digest the food. A
deer can starve to death with a full stomach.

Interesting. Definitely more specific. By the way, deer are browsers,
are they not, not grazers. They eat bark, which is full of lignin
(which is what makes wood woody). This is an entirely different kettle
of fish from cellulose, and needs its own entirely different set of
specialist bacteria to digest.

Not sure what it is about corn: we can eat it no trouble, but then we
have to cook it first.

In comp.os.linux.misc Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> On 12/11/2024 21:40, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 20:41, D wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 19:45, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 11:51:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Isolationism led to Pearl Harbour...and 911
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong on both counts. Stick to philosophy; your grasp of history is
>>>>>>>>> deficient.
>>>>>>>> Wrong on both counts. Stick to parochial matters
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think rbowman has impressed me the most with his grasp of history, and
>>>>>>> our differences when it comes to philosophy speak for themselves. So no
>>>>>>> points for you I'm afraid. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This inst a fucking debating society.
>>>>>> This is the future of civilisation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, so _this_ is where the future of civilisation gets decided.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now where was that group where people talk about computers?...
>>>>>
>>>>> But actually I was slightly looking forward to an explanation of
>>>>> how Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were consequences of isolationism. It's
>>>>> not my understanding of history either.
>>>> NP has seemingly conflated WWI with WWII.
>>>
>>> Not sure what 911 event happened in WW1
>>>
>>> Pearl harbour happened because the Japanese, having been allowed to
>>> rape china concluded that the USA was a soft target.
>>
>> Agreed that Pearl Harbour was, to a certain extent, a consequence of the
>> US attempting to sit out WWII. (But also, a consequence of astoundingly
>> bad decision making in Japan, which would have also been the case if the
>> US had got involved earlier, albeit presumably with different
>> consequences.)
>
> The key motivation of the Japanese was to secure their oil supply
> after the USA imposed an embargo on oil exports to Japan (followed
> by Britain and the Dutch East Indies) in reaction to their
> brutality in China. The USA was trying to force them to pull out of
> China and break their allegiances to the axis powers. All quite
> interventionist.
>
> Then the only way Japan could obtain oil was by force. Perl Harbor
> represented the military power of the USA to resist Japanese
> invasion of oil-producing countries (modern-day Indonesia) or
> disrupt their resulting shipments of oil back to Japan, so Japan
> tried to take it out of the equation.

> But they did a very bad job of that, even forgetting to destroy the
> USA's own oil stockpiles there.

Do not forget that we (USA) caught a very lucky break in that on the
mmorning of the attack, all the aircraft carriers were out on
exercises. Were they not out on exercises they too would have been in
Pearl Harbor, and who knows how much damage they would have taken. We
might have lost most, or all, of the aircraft carriers, and had that
occurred as a result of the attack, mounting a successful pushback in
the pacific theater would have been immensly more difficult.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> Pearl harbour happened because the Japanese, having been allowed to
> rape china concluded that the USA was a soft target.
>
> 911 happened because the USA in its inimitably parochial way totally
> failed to understand or notice the rise in Islamic fundamentalism.

US assistant SECTREAS Harry Dexter White was operating on behalf of the
Soviet Union and Stalin sends White a draft of demands for US to present
to Japan that would provoke Japan into attacking US and drawing US into
the war, Soviets were already fighting Germany nearly alone and wanted
to preclude an attack by Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Dexter_White#Venona_project
demands were included in the Hull Note which Japan received just prior
to decision to attack Perl Harbor, hull note
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_note#Interpretations
More Venona
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project

Benn Stein in "The Battle of Bretton Woods" spends pages 55-58
discussing "Operation Snow".
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Bretton-Woods-Relations-University-ebook/dp/B00B5ZQ72Y/
pg56/loc1065-66: The Soviets had, according to Karpov, used White to
provoke Japan to attack the United States. The scheme even had a name:
"Operation Snow," snow referring to White.

.... from truth is stranger than fiction and law of unintended
consequences that come back to bite you, much of the radical Islam &
ISIS can be considered our own fault, VP Bush in the 80s
https://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Americas-Invisible-Government-ebook/dp/B003NSBMNA/
pg292/loc6057-59: There was also a calculated decision to use the Saudis
as surrogates in the cold war. The United States actually encouraged
Saudi efforts to spread the extremist Wahhabi form of Islam as a way of
stirring up large Muslim communities in Soviet-controlled countries. (It
didn't hurt that Muslim Soviet Asia contained what were believed to be
the world's largest undeveloped reserves of oil.)

Saudi radical extremist Islam/Wahhabi loosened on the world ... bin
Laden & 15of16 9/11 were Saudis (some claims that 95% of extreme Islam
world terrorism is Wahhabi related)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

Mattis somewhat more PC (political correct)
https://www.amazon.com/Call-Sign-Chaos-Learning-Lead-ebook/dp/B07SBRFVNH/
pg21/loc349-51: Ayatollah Khomeini's revolutionary regime took hold in
Iran by ousting the Shah and swearing hostility against the United
States. That same year, the Soviet Union was pouring troops into
Afghanistan to prop up a pro-Russian government that was opposed by
Sunni Islamist fundamentalists and tribal factions. The United States
was supporting Saudi Arabia's involvement in forming a counterweight to
Soviet influence.

and internal CIA
https://www.amazon.com/Permanent-Record-Edward-Snowden-ebook/dp/B07STQPGH6/
pg133/loc1916-17: But al-Qaeda did maintain unusually close ties with
our allies the Saudis, a fact that the Bush White House worked
suspiciously hard to suppress as we went to war with two other
countries.

other trivia:

Winston Churchill on the current mess in middle east and Persia/Iran
dating back to before WW1 ... started with the move from 13.5in to 15in
guns;
https://www.amazon.com/World-Crisis-Winston-Churchills-Collection-ebook/dp/B00FFD2DP2/
loc2012-14: From the beginning there appeared a ship carrying ten
15-inch guns, and therefore at least 600 feet long with room inside her
for engines which would drive her 21 knots and capacity to carry armour
which on the armoured belt, the turrets and the conning tower would
reach the thickness unprecedented in the British Service of 13 inches.
loc2087-89: To build any large additional number of oil-burning ships
meant basing our naval supremacy upon oil. But oil was not found in
appreciable quantities in our islands. If we required it, we must carry
it by sea in peace or war from distant countries.
loc2151-56: This led to enormous expense and to tremendous opposition on
the Naval Estimates. Yet it was absolutely impossible to turn back. We
could only fight our way forward, and finally we found our way to the
Anglo-Persian Oil agreement and contract, which for an initial
investment of two millions of pub`lic money (subsequently increased to
five millions) has not only secured to the Navy a very substantial
proportion of its oil supply, but has led to the acquisition by the
Government of a controlling share in oil properties and interests which
are at present valued at scores of millions sterling, and also to very
considerable economies, which are still continuing, in the purchase
price of Admiralty oil.

In the 50s, an Iran popular elected government wanted to examine the
terms of the British oil contract. Kermit Roosevelt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Roosevelt,_Jr.
helps with coup that installs the Shah (in exchange for supporting the
existing status quo)
tttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
.... and Schwarzkoph (senior; junior participated in Desert Storm)
training of the secret police to help keep Shah in power (eventually an
uprising against the violent, repressive government)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

CIA Director Colby wouldn't approve the "Team B" analysis (exaggerated
USSR military capability) and Rumsfeld got Colby replaced with Bush, who
would approve "Team B" analysis (justifying huge DOD spending increase),
after Rumsfeld replaces Colby, he resigns as white house chief of staff
to become SECDEF (and is replaced by his assistant Cheney)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B
former CIA director H.W. is VP, he and Rumsfeld are involved in
supporting Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
including WMDs (note picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
VP and former CIA director repeatedly claims no knowledge of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
because he was fulltime administration point person deregulating
financial industry ... creating S&L crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis along with other
members of his family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#Silverado_Savings_and_Loan
and another
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE0D81E3BF937A25753C1A966958260

In the early 90s, H.W. is president and Cheney is SECDEF. Sat. photo
recon analyst told white house that Saddam was marshaling forces to
invade Kuwait. White house said that Saddam would do no such thing and
proceeded to discredit the analyst. Later the analyst informed the white
house that Saddam was marshaling forces to invade Saudi Arabia, now the
white house has to choose between Saddam and the Saudis.
https://www.amazon.com/Long-Strange-Journey-Intelligence-ebook/dp/B004NNV5H2/

.... roll forward ... Bush2 is president and presides over the huge cut
in taxes, huge increase in spending, explosion in debt, the economic
mess (70 times larger than his father's S&L crisis, trivia: S&L crisis
had 1000 convictions with jailtime; proportionally, the economic mess
should have had 70,000) and the forever wars, Cheney is VP, Rumsfeld is
SECDEF and one of the Team B members is deputy SECDEF (and major
architect of Iraq policy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz

Before the Iraq invasion, the cousin of white house chief of staff Card
.... was dealing with the Iraqis at the UN and was given evidence that
WMDs (tracing back to US in the Iran/Iraq war) had been
decommissioned. the cousin shared it with (cousin, white house chief of
staff) Card and others ... then is locked up in military hospital, book
was published in 2010 (4yrs before decommissioned WMDs were
declassified)
https://www.amazon.com/EXTREME-PREJUDICE-Terrifying-Story-Patriot-ebook/dp/B004HYHBK2/

NY Times series from 2014, the decommission WMDs (tracing back to US
from Iran/Iraq war), had been found early in the invasion, but the
information was classified for a decade
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

note the military-industrial complex had wanted a war so badly that
corporate reps were telling former eastern block countries that if they
voted for IRAQ2 invasion in the UN, they would get membership in NATO
and (directed appropriation) USAID (can *ONLY* be used for purchase of
modern US arms, aka additional congressional gifts to MIC complex not in
DOD budget). From the law of unintended consequences, the invaders were
told to bypass ammo dumps looking for WMDs, when they got around to
going back, over a million metric tons had evaporated (showing up later
in IEDs)
https://www.amazon.com/Prophets-War-Lockheed-Military-Industrial-ebook/dp/B0047T86BA/

--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

On 14 Nov 2024 08:02:19 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

> The key motivation of the Japanese was to secure their oil supply after
> the USA imposed an embargo on oil exports to Japan (followed by Britain
> and the Dutch East Indies) in reaction to their brutality in China. The
> USA was trying to force them to pull out of China and break their
> allegiances to the axis powers. All quite interventionist.

Roosevelt had odd ideas about the meaning of neutrality. In addition to
interning Italian seamen and World's Fair workers prior to entering the
war, materiel was supplied to the Allied powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Much like the case of Woodrow 'He Kept Us Out of War' Wilson during WWI,
popular opinion was isolationist but our government was having no part of
it. Then, as now, politicians do what they damn well please once elected.

On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:32:01 -1000, Lynn Wheeler wrote:

> US assistant SECTREAS Harry Dexter White was operating on behalf of the
> Soviet Union and Stalin sends White a draft of demands for US to present
> to Japan that would provoke Japan into attacking US and drawing US into
> the war, Soviets were already fighting Germany nearly alone and wanted
> to preclude an attack by Japan.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/lady-death-red-army-
lyudmila-pavlichenko

Pavlichenko did her best and even with her BFF Eleanor Roosevelt couldn't
get the machinery to move any faster. It wasn't that FDR wasn't trolling
but Hitler wasn't biting on his stinky old bait. Japan finally went for
the shashimi.

On 11/13/24 1:30 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 03:19:10 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>
>> Some Model-As and REOs kinda had "it" too.
>>
>> Post-WW2 ... nah ... not so much ... but the mechanicals were better.
>
> A friend in college had been a commercial pilot who returned to school. He
> was older, married, and had acquired some toys like a Model A that he was
> foolish enough to let us borrow. Troy has steep hills as the surriounding
> area drops down to the river. As we descended one I looked over to see
> Pete rigid as he tried to control our spped with the original mechanical
> brakes.

NOPE ! NOT so great !!! :-)

Good down-shifting skills were a MUST !

The A's and many others were intended for CITY
driving - NOT mountains. You got maybe TWO
good brake apps - then nothing.

Hey, 20s/30s tech - they did the best they could.

But "The Look" - hard to beat ! LOVE those curved
fenders blending into a running board ... art !
They'd finally figured out what a "horseless carriage"
should LOOK like.

>> Anyway, as for "look pristine" ... if they come from up north where
>> they slather the roads with salt all winter or too close to an ocean,
>> "pristine" will become "pile of rust" REAL soon. West Texas, Okies,
>> Colorado,
>> maybe Kansas, those are yer best bets. Rust-proofing was NOT a big
>> thing until the 70s or so.
>
> Montana is a very religious state: God put the snow there for some reason
> and will remove it in the fullness of time. Upstate NY was heavy on the
> salt so anything much over 5 years old had problems. The flip side here is
> older cars look great but are mechanically deficient. There's no vehicle
> inspection so as long as it runs, go for it.

For a "restored" car - too old now to restore one
myself - a salt-free origin is IMPORTANT. Damned
salt gets into EVERYTHING, deadly corrosion you
may not see immediately, but WILL see soon enough.
So much for your investment .......

So, for "restored" - stick to those "middle states".

On 11/13/24 3:57 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 13/11/2024 08:50, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> Most 60s cars used
>>    DRUM brakes, you got maybe two or three good
>>    apps before they'd fade.
>
> The thing about drum brakes is that they have slight but significant
> innate brake assistance - the leading shoe tends to wedge itself on.

Yep - likely By Design.

BUT, the instant things get red hot - NO more brakes.
Modern discs/pads ARE superior.

For old cars, DO practice yer downshifting.

> I don't want to go back to unassisted brakes and no power steering either.

"Unassisted" CAN be OK ... but it takes a little
practice.

Had an early-60s car that DID have power steering,
but I was too broke to replace the pump. THAT built
up the arm muscles ! 384 replaced with a 426 ...
massive power, needed a booster fuel pump !

> Most of the complexity of modern engine management systems is to do with
> controlling emissions and squeezing the last mile out of a gallon of
> sauce...

This can be good, bad, or just a COMPLICATION.

Smarter fuel control plus ignition timing really
DOES improve things considerably. However TOO much
IQ seems to drift towards the opposite pole, far
more ways for it to go wrong. A car shouldn't
need an ARM-caliber brain to work properly.

186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
> On 11/13/24 3:57 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 13/11/2024 08:50, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> Most 60s cars used
>>>    DRUM brakes, you got maybe two or three good
>>>    apps before they'd fade.
>>
>> The thing about drum brakes is that they have slight but significant
>> innate brake assistance - the leading shoe tends to wedge itself on.
>
> Yep - likely By Design.
>
> BUT, the instant things get red hot - NO more brakes.
> Modern discs/pads ARE superior.

Disks are superior, but don't think you can't make them fade with
over-application. They too will fade if the rotors get hot enough.
The reason why they don't fade as easily is the design provides more
cooling, so it takes more braking application to achieve the same
'fade' level.

>> I don't want to go back to unassisted brakes and no power steering
>> either.
>
> "Unassisted" CAN be OK ... but it takes a little
> practice.
>
> Had an early-60s car that DID have power steering,
> but I was too broke to replace the pump. THAT built
> up the arm muscles ! 384 replaced with a 426 ...
> massive power, needed a booster fuel pump !

A proper 'manual steer' car is easier to drive than a power steering
car with the power steering disabled. The gearing in the steering unit
is set differently for power assist units vs. true manual steer units,
and power assist, without the power assist, is much harder to steer.

It is the same with power assist brakes. The hydralic multiplication
factor is different between power assist master cylinders and true
manual cylinders. The power assist brakes, without the power assist,
will require much more force on the pedal than a 'manual brake' system
requires to produce the same stopping power.

On 14/11/2024 14:16, Rich wrote:
> Disks are superior, but don't think you can't make them fade with
> over-application. They too will fade if the rotors get hot enough.

Indeed. I was driving my car at about 100mph when I saw stationary
traffic ahead.
The last 15mph or so was.... hard work!

That particular car make was rallied, but with bigger discs, high
temperature pads and better hydraulic fluid.

--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On 14/11/2024 14:16, Rich wrote:
> A proper 'manual steer' car is easier to drive than a power steering
> car with the power steering disabled. The gearing in the steering unit
> is set differently for power assist units vs. true manual steer units,
> and power assist, without the power assist, is much harder to steer.
>
+1.

> It is the same with power assist brakes. The hydralic multiplication
> factor is different between power assist master cylinders and true
> manual cylinders. The power assist brakes, without the power assist,
> will require much more force on the pedal than a 'manual brake' system
> requires to produce the same stopping power.

+2. I had a car once that lost its power brakes. Irt was very hard to
drive to the workshop.

--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:17:28 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 12:26:05 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Linux just kicked out all the Russian contributors.
>>>
>>> Torvalds doubled down by accusing anyone who disagreed of being a
>>> Russian troll. He would have been better off staying silent or pointing
>>> out the US location of the foundation.
>>
>> He has lost a lot of credibility after attending woke courses. Could
>> also be that he is being blackmailed... "Say this or we'll kick you
>> out".
>
> He did point out he is a Finn and they have a fraught relationship with
> Russia. Finland is one of those countries that would rather not discuss
> WWII. After the Winter War they allied with Germany for the Continuation
> War against the Soviets and then made a separate peace with the Soviets
> and entered into the half-hearted Lapland War as the Germans retreated to
> Norway. After WWII the relationship with the Soviets was complicated until
> 1991. They're feeling more secure these days and are anti-Russian.
>

They’re secure until Dipshit trashes NATO.

--
Pete

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> On 12/11/2024 21:40, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 20:41, D wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2024 19:45, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 11:51:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Isolationism led to Pearl Harbour...and 911
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong on both counts. Stick to philosophy; your grasp of history is
>>>>>>>>> deficient.
>>>>>>>> Wrong on both counts. Stick to parochial matters
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think rbowman has impressed me the most with his grasp of history, and
>>>>>>> our differences when it comes to philosophy speak for themselves. So no
>>>>>>> points for you I'm afraid. ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This inst a fucking debating society.
>>>>>> This is the future of civilisation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, so _this_ is where the future of civilisation gets decided.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now where was that group where people talk about computers?...
>>>>>
>>>>> But actually I was slightly looking forward to an explanation of
>>>>> how Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were consequences of isolationism. It's
>>>>> not my understanding of history either.
>>>> NP has seemingly conflated WWI with WWII.
>>>
>>> Not sure what 911 event happened in WW1
>>>
>>> Pearl harbour happened because the Japanese, having been allowed to
>>> rape china concluded that the USA was a soft target.
>>
>> Agreed that Pearl Harbour was, to a certain extent, a consequence of the
>> US attempting to sit out WWII. (But also, a consequence of astoundingly
>> bad decision making in Japan, which would have also been the case if the
>> US had got involved earlier, albeit presumably with different
>> consequences.)
>
> The key motivation of the Japanese was to secure their oil supply
> after the USA imposed an embargo on oil exports to Japan (followed
> by Britain and the Dutch East Indies) in reaction to their
> brutality in China. The USA was trying to force them to pull out of
> China and break their allegiances to the axis powers. All quite
> interventionist.
>
> Then the only way Japan could obtain oil was by force. Perl Harbor
> represented the military power of the USA to resist Japanese
> invasion of oil-producing countries (modern-day Indonesia) or
> disrupt their resulting shipments of oil back to Japan, so Japan
> tried to take it out of the equation. But they did a very bad job
> of that, even forgetting to destroy the USA's own oil stockpiles
> there.
>
> https://cimsec.org/pearl-harbor-1941-the-first-energy-war/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor#Background
>

The knocked us out for nine months, and even then Guadalcanal was touch and
go. Yamamoto knew what they were getting into, and considered Japan taking
on the US a terrible idea.

--
Pete

On 11/14/24 9:16 AM, Rich wrote:
> 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>> On 11/13/24 3:57 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 13/11/2024 08:50, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> Most 60s cars used
>>>>    DRUM brakes, you got maybe two or three good
>>>>    apps before they'd fade.
>>>
>>> The thing about drum brakes is that they have slight but significant
>>> innate brake assistance - the leading shoe tends to wedge itself on.
>>
>> Yep - likely By Design.
>>
>> BUT, the instant things get red hot - NO more brakes.
>> Modern discs/pads ARE superior.
>
> Disks are superior, but don't think you can't make them fade with
> over-application. They too will fade if the rotors get hot enough.
> The reason why they don't fade as easily is the design provides more
> cooling, so it takes more braking application to achieve the same
> 'fade' level.

VERY aware of that.

They DO cool quicker however. BIG advantage.

>>> I don't want to go back to unassisted brakes and no power steering
>>> either.
>>
>> "Unassisted" CAN be OK ... but it takes a little
>> practice.
>>
>> Had an early-60s car that DID have power steering,
>> but I was too broke to replace the pump. THAT built
>> up the arm muscles ! 384 replaced with a 426 ...
>> massive power, needed a booster fuel pump !
>
> A proper 'manual steer' car is easier to drive than a power steering
> car with the power steering disabled. The gearing in the steering unit
> is set differently for power assist units vs. true manual steer units,
> and power assist, without the power assist, is much harder to steer.

Oh, VERY aware of THAT ... the fucker was insanely
difficult - took major effort.

BUT, I could barely afford gas money back then ...

> It is the same with power assist brakes. The hydralic multiplication
> factor is different between power assist master cylinders and true
> manual cylinders. The power assist brakes, without the power assist,
> will require much more force on the pedal than a 'manual brake' system
> requires to produce the same stopping power.

I'd rather have un-powered steering than faulty
power brakes. The systems were NOT set up to cope
with unpowered brakes fer-sure. You'd have to
weigh 400 pounds to get a good stop.

On 14/11/2024 18:50, Peter Flass wrote:
> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:17:28 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Nov 2024 12:26:05 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Linux just kicked out all the Russian contributors.
>>>>
>>>> Torvalds doubled down by accusing anyone who disagreed of being a
>>>> Russian troll. He would have been better off staying silent or pointing
>>>> out the US location of the foundation.
>>>
>>> He has lost a lot of credibility after attending woke courses. Could
>>> also be that he is being blackmailed... "Say this or we'll kick you
>>> out".
>>
>> He did point out he is a Finn and they have a fraught relationship with
>> Russia. Finland is one of those countries that would rather not discuss
>> WWII. After the Winter War they allied with Germany for the Continuation
>> War against the Soviets and then made a separate peace with the Soviets
>> and entered into the half-hearted Lapland War as the Germans retreated to
>> Norway. After WWII the relationship with the Soviets was complicated until
>> 1991. They're feeling more secure these days and are anti-Russian.
>>
>
> They’re secure until Dipshit trashes NATO.
>
That invites another question.
Just how far can he go against his own party in selecting an executive team?

Some of his biggest chums are clearly not favoured by the majority of
the Republican party

With respect to NATO, if he pulls out the repercussions on the US global
military presence would be huge, and he has already shown he isn't happy
with what's happening with the Chagos islands...a very useful US Indian
ocean 'aircraft carrier' at Diego Garcia.

So is he really isolationist? Really pro Putin? Or what?
How far will his own party support him when its clear the Democrats will
oppose everything he does on principal?

Will he trash Putin now he has been elected?

--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

BTW - after awhile I abandoned the idea of replacing
the power-steering pump. I had this idea that if anyone
STOLE the car it would be found ABANDONED a few blocks
away :-)

Cars, early 60s, were VERY heavy - lots of steel.

You get the same effect these days by owning a car
with a manual tranny, 3-on-the-tree is best.
The 'millenials' onward CAN'T figure it out any
more than rotary-dial telephones or TVs with
an actual, manual, tuning knob.

"Don't Touch That Dial !" ...

On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:04:32 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> Cars, early 60s, were VERY heavy - lots of steel.

My '62 Lincoln was 5400 pounds on the hoof. Imagine my joy when I blew the
master cylinder on my way to work. No dual systems on that puppy. It was
in an industrial park and the parking lot was uphill from the road so I
could drift in for a gentle landing.

I'd blown a master in my '51 Chevy but between the manual transmission and
a real handbrake it wasn't a problem. I've never had to use it in those
circumstances but I'm happy the Toyota has a real handbrake instead of the
foot operated latching type.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 08:54:10 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> One that did well here was the Renault 4. More lean than a drunken
>> Irishman, but it still kept its tyres on the road.
>
> The French had lots of brilliant engineering, and pioneered concepts
> decades before other car makers adopted them -- like front-wheel drive.
> Renault invented both the hatchback and the people mover.
>
> I looked up the details of Renault 4 suspension after reading the above;
> it didn’t have self-levelling suspension (it was the Citroën 2CV I was
> thinking of), but it did have a clever system nonetheless.

I remember seeing a 2CV on display at the local mall when they first
came out in the US. They had the suspension set to keep changing the
height, so the car was going up and down, front and back, then both at
once, etc. Kind of interesting to see at first, but it evidently wasn't
interesting enough to most people to actually get them to buy one.