Not much going on at our end of reality. About the biggest event lately for us was my thirty-year high school reunion. I ended up going this time (I don't think there was a tenth - and I was busy moving during my twentieth) and seeing people I hadn't seen in...well...thirty years.
It was okay, I guess. But the restaurant it was set at (the "Veranda Grill" on the Queen Mary, in Long Beach) was a bad shape for such an event (the floor space formed a "U" - which meant that no matter where you sat, you could see at most a third of the people there), had a really poor sound system (I couldn't hear a guy on a microphone less than twenty feet away), problematic air conditioning (bad thing for a room with one hundred people in it on a night with eighty-five degree temps and ninety percent humidity) and the food was lousy (though I believe that's a given for such events).
Add in a raging headache and you have the ingredients for a poorish night.
Still, as I said, there were people there I hadn't seen in three decades, so it was at least interesting and I'm glad I went. Still, I probably won't do it again until my fiftieth...
It was okay, I guess. But the restaurant it was set at (the "Veranda Grill" on the Queen Mary, in Long Beach) was a bad shape for such an event (the floor space formed a "U" - which meant that no matter where you sat, you could see at most a third of the people there), had a really poor sound system (I couldn't hear a guy on a microphone less than twenty feet away), problematic air conditioning (bad thing for a room with one hundred people in it on a night with eighty-five degree temps and ninety percent humidity) and the food was lousy (though I believe that's a given for such events).
Add in a raging headache and you have the ingredients for a poorish night.
Still, as I said, there were people there I hadn't seen in three decades, so it was at least interesting and I'm glad I went. Still, I probably won't do it again until my fiftieth...
|
Divergent Opinions - Comments on P.O.D. 46
|
|
Section One
|
Robert Alley
ct: Robert Gill: ct: Cozort:
"...just how many really big disaster[s] did happen in the years of WWII?" Probably a lot. It's just with all the death an destruction of WWII going on, "big disaster" requires a much higher level than usual to get noticed.
Heck, Japan had four big earthquakes during this period that any other time would be major news. But compared to the destruction of WWII, even these magnitude 7 and 8 quakes just made a "blip" on the disaster chart of the time.
Here's a list of the larger quakes of the period:
As you can see, even New Hampshire was having big quakes - yet all the fatalities/damage total worldwide probably added up to, what, a particularly quiet week on the Pacific or European fronts?
Storm-wise, there was the "Great Atlantic Hurricane 1944," which (acto this site) "While this hurricane caused 46 deaths and $100 million in damage in the United States, the worst effects occurred at sea where it wreaked havoc on World War II shipping. Five ships, including a U. S. Navy destroyer and minesweeper, two U. S. Coast Guard cutters, and a light vessel, sank due to the storm causing 344 deaths." And I would expect similar storms of a typhoony nature (though I can't find a nice historical chart online, like I did for hurricanes).
Still, while disasters, they are more or less normal disasters and thus crowded out of historic memory by the extreme mess of WWII.
Heck, Japan had four big earthquakes during this period that any other time would be major news. But compared to the destruction of WWII, even these magnitude 7 and 8 quakes just made a "blip" on the disaster chart of the time.
Here's a list of the larger quakes of the period:
1945 01 12 - Mikawa, Japan - M 7.1 Fatalities 1,961
1944 12 07 - Tonankai, Japan - M 8.1 Fatalities 998
1944 09 05 - Between Massena, New York and Cornwall, Ontario, Canada - M 5.8
1944 07 12 - Sheep Mountain, Idaho - M 6.1
1944 02 01 - Gerede, Turkey - M 7.4 Fatalities 2,790
1944 01 15 - San Juan, Argentina - M 7.4 Fatalities 8,000
1943 11 26 - Ladik, Turkey - M 7.6 Fatalities 4,000
1943 11 03 - Skwenta, Alaska - M 7.4
1943 09 10 - Tottori, Japan - M 7.4 Fatalities 1,190
1943 04 06 - Illapel - Salamanca, Chile - M 8.2 Fatalities 25
1943 01 30 - Yanaoca, Peru Fatalities 200
1942 12 20 - Erbaa, Turkey - M 7.3 Fatalities 1,100
1942 11 26 - Turkey - M 7.6 Fatalities 4,000
1940 12 24 - Ossipee Lake, New Hampshire - M 5.5
1940 12 20 - Ossipee Lake, New Hampshire - M 5.5
1940 11 10 - Vrancea, Romania - M 7.3 Fatalities 1,000
1940 05 24 - Callao, Peru - M 8.2 Fatalities 249
1940 05 19 - Imperial Valley, California - M 7.1 Fatalities 9
1939 12 26 - Erzincan, Turkey - M 7.8 Fatalities 32,700
1939 01 25 - Chillan, Chile - M 7.8 Fatalities 28,000
1938 11 10 - Shumagin Islands, Alaska - M 8.2
1938 02 01 - Banda Sea, Indonesia - M 8.5
1938 01 23 - Maui, Hawaii - M 6.8
1944 12 07 - Tonankai, Japan - M 8.1 Fatalities 998
1944 09 05 - Between Massena, New York and Cornwall, Ontario, Canada - M 5.8
1944 07 12 - Sheep Mountain, Idaho - M 6.1
1944 02 01 - Gerede, Turkey - M 7.4 Fatalities 2,790
1944 01 15 - San Juan, Argentina - M 7.4 Fatalities 8,000
1943 11 26 - Ladik, Turkey - M 7.6 Fatalities 4,000
1943 11 03 - Skwenta, Alaska - M 7.4
1943 09 10 - Tottori, Japan - M 7.4 Fatalities 1,190
1943 04 06 - Illapel - Salamanca, Chile - M 8.2 Fatalities 25
1943 01 30 - Yanaoca, Peru Fatalities 200
1942 12 20 - Erbaa, Turkey - M 7.3 Fatalities 1,100
1942 11 26 - Turkey - M 7.6 Fatalities 4,000
1940 12 24 - Ossipee Lake, New Hampshire - M 5.5
1940 12 20 - Ossipee Lake, New Hampshire - M 5.5
1940 11 10 - Vrancea, Romania - M 7.3 Fatalities 1,000
1940 05 24 - Callao, Peru - M 8.2 Fatalities 249
1940 05 19 - Imperial Valley, California - M 7.1 Fatalities 9
1939 12 26 - Erzincan, Turkey - M 7.8 Fatalities 32,700
1939 01 25 - Chillan, Chile - M 7.8 Fatalities 28,000
1938 11 10 - Shumagin Islands, Alaska - M 8.2
1938 02 01 - Banda Sea, Indonesia - M 8.5
1938 01 23 - Maui, Hawaii - M 6.8
As you can see, even New Hampshire was having big quakes - yet all the fatalities/damage total worldwide probably added up to, what, a particularly quiet week on the Pacific or European fronts?
Storm-wise, there was the "Great Atlantic Hurricane 1944," which (acto this site) "While this hurricane caused 46 deaths and $100 million in damage in the United States, the worst effects occurred at sea where it wreaked havoc on World War II shipping. Five ships, including a U. S. Navy destroyer and minesweeper, two U. S. Coast Guard cutters, and a light vessel, sank due to the storm causing 344 deaths." And I would expect similar storms of a typhoony nature (though I can't find a nice historical chart online, like I did for hurricanes).
Still, while disasters, they are more or less normal disasters and thus crowded out of historic memory by the extreme mess of WWII.
ct: Me: ct: Gill:
"But if Spain ends up with the land, I think it would tend to make it harder for the US to end up with Alta California." It would certainly make for more fighting over the area. But even if Louisiana remains Spanish (and soon to be Mexican) territory, it still has the problem that the number of Spanish/Mexican citizens North of, say Santa Fe remains...well, essentially non-existent. Heck, north of the current border and you're talking a total population (much of which wasn't all that keen on the PTB back in Mexico City) of only a few tens of thousands (if you ignore the Anglos from the United States to Texas) - and that mostly in New Mexico.
As I suggested, I can see Mexico selling off the northern half of Louisiana to the United States, maybe even land as far west as California. Call it roughly a line stretching from Illinois to San Francisco Bay. The number of Mexican citizens north of that line was probably (much) less than a hundred, and a newly minted Mexico could get some nice change for land they probably knew they couldn't hold (rather like what Nappy did, OTL, actually).
Now the big question is, having sold that land to the U.S., do they still start importing Americans into Texas? Or does the Southwest remain Mexican? Even if the U.S. gets a Texas (not necessarily with the same borders as on OTL), that doesn't mean they'll get the rest of the Southwest. Once the U.S. has their Pacific port(s), I can easily see them not caring much about tens and thousands of square miles of worthless "desert" land - i.e., New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California.
Under this scenario, we avoid a Mexican/American war (unless grabbing Texas racks up the tension level too high) and Mexico gets to keep some land that will be worth a lot...eventually (I still can't see a big immigration into the area from Mexico until the early/mid 1900's).
The Gold Rush is probably going to convolute things along the border through the Sierra Nevadas - but most of the gold (and silver, Comstock is north of the border too) is still going to end up in U.S. hands.
This could make for an interesting scenario...
As I suggested, I can see Mexico selling off the northern half of Louisiana to the United States, maybe even land as far west as California. Call it roughly a line stretching from Illinois to San Francisco Bay. The number of Mexican citizens north of that line was probably (much) less than a hundred, and a newly minted Mexico could get some nice change for land they probably knew they couldn't hold (rather like what Nappy did, OTL, actually).
Now the big question is, having sold that land to the U.S., do they still start importing Americans into Texas? Or does the Southwest remain Mexican? Even if the U.S. gets a Texas (not necessarily with the same borders as on OTL), that doesn't mean they'll get the rest of the Southwest. Once the U.S. has their Pacific port(s), I can easily see them not caring much about tens and thousands of square miles of worthless "desert" land - i.e., New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California.
Under this scenario, we avoid a Mexican/American war (unless grabbing Texas racks up the tension level too high) and Mexico gets to keep some land that will be worth a lot...eventually (I still can't see a big immigration into the area from Mexico until the early/mid 1900's).
The Gold Rush is probably going to convolute things along the border through the Sierra Nevadas - but most of the gold (and silver, Comstock is north of the border too) is still going to end up in U.S. hands.
This could make for an interesting scenario...
Dale Cozort
Dang, I had my comments all written to you - then lost them while moving files back and forth to try and get my home and work computers to match...
...hopefully, that's the only thing I lost...
Oh well: Comments to Dale Cozort, Take Two.
"I've discovered social networking, and it has eaten my life." Fortunately (?) I'm not all that social, so my total "Gather" time is about two hours a month.
The main problem with these kind of contests with a "Top Page" format is that 99% of the people never go anywhere but that first page - so basically in order to get enough votes to get on the "Top Page"...you have to be on the "Top Page"...4
"You've always wanted to be a minion, haven't you?" Nah. I've always been more the "Evil Overlord" type...got the Evil LaughTM and everything.
...hopefully, that's the only thing I lost...
Oh well: Comments to Dale Cozort, Take Two.
"I've discovered social networking, and it has eaten my life." Fortunately (?) I'm not all that social, so my total "Gather" time is about two hours a month.
The main problem with these kind of contests with a "Top Page" format is that 99% of the people never go anywhere but that first page - so basically in order to get enough votes to get on the "Top Page"...you have to be on the "Top Page"...4
"You've always wanted to be a minion, haven't you?" Nah. I've always been more the "Evil Overlord" type...got the Evil LaughTM and everything.
re: Collapse, part 2:
Having tasted dried dog food as a youth (okay, I was nine - and it was mostly Milkbones...), I can safely say it's not the worst thing I've ever tasted (not even the worst food), but it would certainly get a bit...boring...pretty quickly (even if it does make its own gravy).
re: Sanctuary:
"I'm not sure where the cash flow is supposed to come from..." From their main site where they're selling "high def" versions of their shows for $1.99 for regular and $2.49 for "highest def" an episode. Plus the usual t-shirts and hats and whatnot.
Not a bad little series - if nothing else, it seems to give Stargate: Atlantis actors something to do on their vacation...;)
"I'm not sure where the cash flow is supposed to come from..." From their main site where they're selling "high def" versions of their shows for $1.99 for regular and $2.49 for "highest def" an episode. Plus the usual t-shirts and hats and whatnot.Not a bad little series - if nothing else, it seems to give Stargate: Atlantis actors something to do on their vacation...;)
re: Bear Country:
Okay, this is coming along nicely. The characters reactions (and reasons for those reactions) are much better written than in the first go through (back when they were all separate stories). Mind you, I think Sam's got some serious delusions about his chances, but...
Anthony Docimo
"I might have to go to the hospital soon. Wish me luck." Well, by now it's probably late - but good luck anyway.
ct: Me: re: Robert Alley:
"Probably has sloths galore (terrestrial, climbing and aquatic ones)." Hmmm, the thought of an aquatic subspecies of sloth is interesting. You'd probably need an environment with a lot more green, growing things than the waters off Bahama (Great or otherwise) though. Maybe off the California coast - a species of kelp-munching sloth.
re: You:
"'such a slender Docimo-zine...' I'm never going to hear the end of that, am I?" Not with four page submissions, no. Face it - you spoiled us...;)
re: Wesley Kawato:
"Didn't Japan have fissionable materials by the end of WW2?" Probably - everyone else did. But it doesn't really matter. Short of having a dump-truck load of pure plutonium appear out of nowhere at the end of WWII, Japan will not have an atomic bomb...
...I mean, apart from the way it got two of them on OTL.
...I mean, apart from the way it got two of them on OTL.
Robert Gill
ct: Fulkerson:
"Given the 60's political reality, why did NASA test the female astronauts if they had no intention of letting them fly, anyway?" Well, if this NASA's history site is to be believed, they basically didn't test them in the first place. Acto it:
Lovelace ran the clinic where the male Mercury astronauts were tested at and, acto to this site:
"Dr. R. Lovelace helped NASA draw up their profile of the perfect astronaut, based on years of medical testing experience of pilots. Again in 1959, Dr. Lovelace was in Miami, Florida attending an Aviation Convention, when he and Air Force Brigadier General Donald Flickinger wondered how women would handle the new frontier of space, if they were given a chance. General Flickinger had knowledge of the Russians preparing a non-pilot woman to be put into space and knew America had to act quickly if we wanted to launch a woman into space first. At this same Aviation Convention, Dr. Lovelace and General Flickinger met Aero Commander's first woman pilot, Jerrie Cobb. Impressed by Jerrie's experience and credentials, Jerrie was selected to be the first American woman to take the astronaut tests."
So - basically - the whole thing was a private affair and only peripherally connected to NASA at all and it died when NASA refused to ask the Navy for permission for the group to use their Pensacola Naval School of Aviation Medicine for the next level of testing - which given it wasn't actually their testing sorta makes sense.
And then right after that, Valentina Tereshkova made her flight (ironically, it's possible the Soviets only did that because they heard about the "Mercury 13" and wanted to get in another first...), so that it was no longer possible for the U.S. to get that "First Woman In Space" badge anymore, which killed whatever interest left at NASA there might have been.
"[Dr. Randolph] Lovelace's Woman in Space Program was a short-lived, privately-funded project testing women pilots for astronaut fitness in the early 1960s." (emphasis mine)
Lovelace ran the clinic where the male Mercury astronauts were tested at and, acto to this site:
"Dr. R. Lovelace helped NASA draw up their profile of the perfect astronaut, based on years of medical testing experience of pilots. Again in 1959, Dr. Lovelace was in Miami, Florida attending an Aviation Convention, when he and Air Force Brigadier General Donald Flickinger wondered how women would handle the new frontier of space, if they were given a chance. General Flickinger had knowledge of the Russians preparing a non-pilot woman to be put into space and knew America had to act quickly if we wanted to launch a woman into space first. At this same Aviation Convention, Dr. Lovelace and General Flickinger met Aero Commander's first woman pilot, Jerrie Cobb. Impressed by Jerrie's experience and credentials, Jerrie was selected to be the first American woman to take the astronaut tests."So - basically - the whole thing was a private affair and only peripherally connected to NASA at all and it died when NASA refused to ask the Navy for permission for the group to use their Pensacola Naval School of Aviation Medicine for the next level of testing - which given it wasn't actually their testing sorta makes sense.
And then right after that, Valentina Tereshkova made her flight (ironically, it's possible the Soviets only did that because they heard about the "Mercury 13" and wanted to get in another first...), so that it was no longer possible for the U.S. to get that "First Woman In Space" badge anymore, which killed whatever interest left at NASA there might have been.
ct: Me:
Though still no sign of an American version of the DVDs - Huzzah! - it looks like Torchwood will be on BBCAmerica, starting in September.
Me
My ghod! I finally got the clearcut!!!
ct: James Fulkerson: ct: Me: ct: Kawato:
"But the first image that's going to come to mind when someone says "flying saucer" is, well, a saucer...flying." Which is actually a bit ironic, because the very first "modern" UFO report by Kenneth Arnold in 1947 - and the origin of the term "flying saucer" - did not describe saucer-shaped objects (more flying wings, than anything else). He just said they were "flying like a saucer would..."
ct: Dale Speirs:
In retrospect, I should have put your name in that fake-typewriter-font I used for the comments...you know, to keep the theme going.
ct: Dale Cozort: re: "Grow an Alien Brain":
"In bad situations, the dimmer animals put less stress on reduced resources, will the hominid-level ones are bright enough to develop new resources - or up and move to a whole new area."
Of course, that should be "while the hominid-level ones..." not "will." Had to correct this on my web version too - so I missed it for a long time...
Of course, that should be "while the hominid-level ones..." not "will." Had to correct this on my web version too - so I missed it for a long time...
re: Scenario Seeds:
"Not sure about starting the I.R. sooner, but delaying it a couple of decades could be possible if Britain didn't lose the colonies. In simplest form, more wood, less need to play with coal as soon or as hard. Industrial Revolution, delayed." And thinking about this some more it occurs to me that this is...dumb. Certainly, the North Americans colonies Britain had left were more than sufficient to supply a lot of wood to Britain if this was in any way more economical than that whole "playing with coal" thing.
re: Alweg L.A.:
MTA has actually done tons-O-studies about putting in monorails various places (heck, it was formed to study a monorail running along the L.A. River from Long Beach to the Valley!) and we've yet to get one. That's either because monorails aren't all they're cracked up to be (sorry Ray), or it's simply a side-effect of the wacky way transit is handled in L.A. County. I mean, read this "history of" and you'll see how screwy the whole system's been for the last half-century.
If nothing else, this helps to explain why we have four Metrorail lines (currently - and not to be confused with Metrolink lines - which is a whole different system run by a whole different group that just happens to run in the same area), none of which actually connect to one another - even if they cross each other or use the exact same stations. And this explains why it takes three trains5 and a ton of walking up and down stairs to go from Pasadena to Long Beach - a route that originally was planned as a single "Blue Line."
I notice that neither of the two sides of the great "Monorail Usefulness" war seem to have any really hard data. There's some variation - and some occasional actual research - but it mostly boils down to supporters putting forth original Alweg reports on how cheap and easy they'd be to build - in spite of those reports being a half-century out of date and pretty much WAGs even then - and opponents saying "well, if they're so cheap and easy to build, why has no one done so?" - in spite of the fact that some places have (mostly in Asia - and of course, they never acknowledge the Disneylands/Worlds usage for some reason) and that much of the reason monorails proposals don't get built is that the opponents come in and say "well, if they're so cheap and easy to build, why has no one done so?"
I'm actually kinda neutral on this. On the whole, precast concrete beamways ought to be cheaper/faster to build than two-rail lines - or even busways6 - but often the major costs seem to be the stations, vehicles, and acquiring the actual right-of-way itself rather than the concrete, asphalt, or rail that goes along it. And they do have the disadvantage that they pretty much need to be elevated - no running down at street level for monorails7 - though, in all honestly, given the amount of building over or below street level even light rail needs in L.A., that cost difference has got to be small.
If nothing else, this helps to explain why we have four Metrorail lines (currently - and not to be confused with Metrolink lines - which is a whole different system run by a whole different group that just happens to run in the same area), none of which actually connect to one another - even if they cross each other or use the exact same stations. And this explains why it takes three trains5 and a ton of walking up and down stairs to go from Pasadena to Long Beach - a route that originally was planned as a single "Blue Line."
I notice that neither of the two sides of the great "Monorail Usefulness" war seem to have any really hard data. There's some variation - and some occasional actual research - but it mostly boils down to supporters putting forth original Alweg reports on how cheap and easy they'd be to build - in spite of those reports being a half-century out of date and pretty much WAGs even then - and opponents saying "well, if they're so cheap and easy to build, why has no one done so?" - in spite of the fact that some places have (mostly in Asia - and of course, they never acknowledge the Disneylands/Worlds usage for some reason) and that much of the reason monorails proposals don't get built is that the opponents come in and say "well, if they're so cheap and easy to build, why has no one done so?"
I'm actually kinda neutral on this. On the whole, precast concrete beamways ought to be cheaper/faster to build than two-rail lines - or even busways6 - but often the major costs seem to be the stations, vehicles, and acquiring the actual right-of-way itself rather than the concrete, asphalt, or rail that goes along it. And they do have the disadvantage that they pretty much need to be elevated - no running down at street level for monorails7 - though, in all honestly, given the amount of building over or below street level even light rail needs in L.A., that cost difference has got to be small.
Wesley Kawato
ct: Gill:
"Japan could have built a nuclear research lab in Hokkaido, which was spared heavy air raids because that island had few strategic installations" Yes, they could. Of course, they couldn't supply it with enough materials and power to actually do something useful - but they could build it...
...and, if they do build it there, then - suddenly - there now is a "strategic installation" on Hokkaido...and the U.S. will bomb it...
There's just no way to give Imperial Japan the bomb without a pre-twentieth century POD, or an absence (at least, until the 1960s) of the Pacific part of WWII. There's just not. It's the "successful Sealion scenario" of the Pacific.
ct: Me: And Imperial Japan is not going to survive WWII, even if the U.S. atomic bomb is delayed.
...and, if they do build it there, then - suddenly - there now is a "strategic installation" on Hokkaido...and the U.S. will bomb it...
There's just no way to give Imperial Japan the bomb without a pre-twentieth century POD, or an absence (at least, until the 1960s) of the Pacific part of WWII. There's just not. It's the "successful Sealion scenario" of the Pacific.
ct: Me: And Imperial Japan is not going to survive WWII, even if the U.S. atomic bomb is delayed.
|
||
|
|
|
|
The army would see it as taking troops and materials away from the "real" war (the one that gets them Asia, not a bunch of funny islands whose sole purpose is to give the navy something to do), while the navy would see it as being put in the humiliating position of asking for help from the army.
In Japan in 1941...that's just not going to happen - at least not very easily (IOW, up to ASB level help).
It's interesting, though, that giving less men/materials to the Philippines might end up with them hurting the Japanese more.