Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 15:07:34 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:40:46 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

Think about it like cancer (airplanes into a building) and heart
disease (mass-shootings). On what planet would one say, "f*** heart
disease, look how many people die of cancer!" Wouldn't the reasonable
response be, "hey, let's reduce heart disease and cancer deaths."

Aw, come on, man, we've had enough about helmets already. Helmets can't
cure cancer. But they can keep you from dying long enough to ride your
bike enough to prevent further hear disease.

Nope. Bicyce Helmet prevent nothing. There is a correlation of activity
to reduced risk of heart disease, but no correlation to "prevention".
Risk just means chance.
..

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 06:44:45 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 07:32:10 -0700, jbeattie wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:24:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army reserves.
They no longer receive any training after that. If you consider that
a "well regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have been
pointing out.

Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many times
Switzerland has been invaded.


As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence
ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle
behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising 1944. Or
Tibet 1959. I could go on.

You think the outcome would have been different if any of those groups
were armed to the teeth? Tibet versus China?

Possibly, but my understandind is that invading tibet was a bit like
Napolean/hitler invading Moscow. At the time is was a long long way over
a narrow trail up a very high mountain.

I believe that is primarily from the south and access from the north
or east is somewhat flatter.

G.B. invaded Tibet in 1903 and captured the country and than signed a
treaty with China in 1906 ceding Tibet to the Chinese. In 1911 Tibet
expelled the Chinese and was independent until 1950 when the Chinese
retook the country.

Hmmm. I'll put my money
on the country with the largest standing army in the world.

Only if it has the transport advantage to overcome any native resistance.
US Vs Vietnam comes to mind as well as Ukraine Vs Russia.

China: 3.6 guns per 100 people. US: 120 guns per 100 people. Let's
attack China! They've got no guns!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_c ountry

You imagine a rather quaint version of modern warfare. One drone could
take out an entire block full of US meatheads with AR-15 variants. Small
arms fire might be enough to bring down an Apache (after it has
basically decimated the neighborhood with a chain gun), but its not
effective against a Reaper. A Tomahawk could take out an entire NRA
convention.

Isn't that all moot with your current Nuke'em President?

By the time it came to building-to-building fighting, we
would be in a post-apocalyptic world and shooting each other for food
and water. Meanwhile, in the rear world, we have a stupid amount of
guns as a culture and are managing to shoot each other with great
regularity.

They make great hootchie poles when you run out of bullets for them.
My 2c is that should US society collapse, the population will implode
from starvation as 99% of peole willl not know how to grow food and the
rest will be struggling to grow some in time to avoid starvation.

As this is a bnicycle group, we should now discuss which is the best
bicycle you should stock op with to trade for food afdter the apocalypse.

-- Jay Beattie.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the entire Japanese Army for one single action.


Only if it has the transport advantage to overcome any native resistance.
US Vs Vietnam comes to mind as well as Ukraine Vs Russia.

Why would you mention Vietnam when you so obviously don't know anything about it?

Isn't that all moot with your current Nuke'em President?

Exactly where did that come from? Has this administration made any threats to anyone in the last 3 years? Rather quite the opposite. President Trump has opened serious peace discussions with North Korea. He has set forth trade negotiations on a common ground with Russia and China which would make them dependent upon peace. After Iran attacked shipping in the straits of Hormuz the President refused to allow the military to take actions that would harm more Iranians than their attack was worth. Really, you should at least know what is going on before making less than smart comments.

They make great hootchie poles when you run out of bullets for them.
My 2c is that should US society collapse, the population will implode
from starvation as 99% of peole willl not know how to grow food and the
rest will be struggling to grow some in time to avoid starvation.

You don't know anything about farming either I see. So why are you commenting on it?

As this is a bnicycle group, we should now discuss which is the best
bicycle you should stock op with to trade for food afdter the apocalypse.

You seem to be shaking in fear for no discernable reason. I suggest you get a tight hold on yourself.

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 12:06:45 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 15:07:34 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:40:46 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

Think about it like cancer (airplanes into a building) and heart
disease (mass-shootings). On what planet would one say, "f*** heart
disease, look how many people die of cancer!" Wouldn't the reasonable
response be, "hey, let's reduce heart disease and cancer deaths."

Aw, come on, man, we've had enough about helmets already. Helmets can't
cure cancer. But they can keep you from dying long enough to ride your
bike enough to prevent further hear disease.

Nope. Bicyce Helmet prevent nothing. There is a correlation of activity
to reduced risk of heart disease, but no correlation to "prevention".
Risk just means chance.
.

Bicycle helmets in the STYROFOAM era did not save lives. That absolutely does NOT mean that they "do nothing". They prevent a lot of minor and painful injuries that could lead to more serious infections.

With Trek's new Wavecell technology it remains to be seen whether they would be 48 times better than Styrofoam or not. If they are there is a moderate chance that they could save lives.

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 8:38:35 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 12:06:45 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 15:07:34 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 5:40:46 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

Think about it like cancer (airplanes into a building) and heart
disease (mass-shootings). On what planet would one say, "f*** heart
disease, look how many people die of cancer!" Wouldn't the reasonable
response be, "hey, let's reduce heart disease and cancer deaths."

Aw, come on, man, we've had enough about helmets already. Helmets can't
cure cancer. But they can keep you from dying long enough to ride your
bike enough to prevent further hear disease.

Nope. Bicyce Helmet prevent nothing. There is a correlation of activity
to reduced risk of heart disease, but no correlation to "prevention".
Risk just means chance.
.

Bicycle helmets in the STYROFOAM era did not save lives. That absolutely does NOT mean that they "do nothing". They prevent a lot of minor and painful injuries that could lead to more serious infections.

I saw that little man, News18, who is probably the thief Peter Howard under yet another name, slicing salami paper-thin in order to somehow, anyhow prove me wrong, but decided not to give him the satisfaction of responding. I'm bored by the good-for-nothing.

With Trek's new Wavecell technology it remains to be seen whether they would be 48 times better than Styrofoam or not. If they are there is a moderate chance that they could save lives.

I'm waiting a bit for more user-info on these Wavecell helmets before I replace my Citi, because they sound like the real goods.

Andre Jute
There's no rush. Time is eternal.

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million
Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the
entire Japanese Army for one single action.

It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics
The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans
57,500, for a total of 132,715.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II
In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active
duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard).

But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply
doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common,
ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction.

Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories
extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those
"super Heroes"?

Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect
and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes.

In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million
Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the
entire Japanese Army for one single action.

It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics
The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans
57,500, for a total of 132,715.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II
In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active
duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard).

But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply
doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common,
ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction.

Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories
extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those
"super Heroes"?

Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect
and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes.

In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom.

--
cheers,

John B.

I'd like to know why you purposely ignored the paragraph slightly below that:

"American personnel in Britain included 1,931,885 land, 659,554 air, and 285,000 naval—a total of 2,876,439 officers and men. While in Britain they were housed in 1,108 bases and camps."

Oh wait, it is your belief that the 1.7 million members of the Japanese military were ALL soldiers without any support personnel at all.

John, I am never surprised in the least to what lengths you will go to, to pretend to be correct.

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million
Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the
entire Japanese Army for one single action.

It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics
The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans
57,500, for a total of 132,715.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II
In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active
duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard).

But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply
doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common,
ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction.

Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories
extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those
"super Heroes"?

Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect
and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes.

In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom.

Also, in case you missed it - the entire Japanese military in 1944 WHEN THEY ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR was 1.7 million men. The possible invasion of America was what we were talking about - or have you forgotten that so soon?

That in 1945 after almost continuous defeat and the looming threat of American invasion they drafted almost every able bodied Japanese. Most of them did even know how to hold a rifle let alone shoot one. Virtually none of them were good for any extraneous jobs such as maintenance of the Navy or Air Force. The Zero's were falling to pieces even against the Flying Tigers and there was nothing they could present against the P-51. Hell, I believe that until half-way through the Korean War that the F-51 had a much higher kill ratio against Migs.

Again, you do not surprise me.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million
Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the
entire Japanese Army for one single action.

It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics
The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans
57,500, for a total of 132,715.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II
In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active
duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard).

But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply
doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common,
ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction.

Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories
extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those
"super Heroes"?

Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect
and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes.

In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom.

--
cheers,

John B.

I'd like to know why you purposely ignored the paragraph slightly below that:


No I didn't ignore anything. I was replying specifically to your
statement that:
" There were nearly 2 million Americans involved in the D-Day
landings". Note the word "landings".

Now if you want to include all of the support effort for the "D-day
landings" I suppose that you would need to include all of the support,
the U.S. manufacturing of the floating landing jetties, the building
of all of the landing craft that hauled the troops and undoubted all
the naval forces involved. Except, of course, that they didn't all
"land".

So I just accepted that when you said "landing" that you meant
"landing" and of course you probably did.... right up until I pointed
out that you simply, as is so common, didn't know what you were
talking about.

entire Japanese Army for one single action.

"American personnel in Britain included 1,931,885 land, 659,554 air, and 285,000 naval—a total of 2,876,439 officers and men. While in Britain they were housed in 1,108 bases and camps."

Oh wait, it is your belief that the 1.7 million members of the Japanese military were ALL soldiers without any support personnel at all.

John, I am never surprised in the least to what lengths you will go to, to pretend to be correct.

Re the Japanese Army? Support military? Err, Tom, all army figures
include what you probably mean by "support personnel" like the cooks
and bakers, the truck drivers that haul the food and ammunition, the
mechanics that fix the trucks, the generals that plan the operations,
they are all wearing a uniform and that are all "in the army"..

Good Lord, you ought to know that as you were "support" since as you
have so often said you were some sort of electronics fixer.

The generally accepted figures for actual shoot 'em up, bang, bang,
combat troops versus total military is in the 1 out of 9 -- 1 out of
12 figures with the larger numbers in the more technical part of the
military.

The generally accept figures for current (21 century) U.S. operations
is 1 out of 10.

Tom, I recently read a statement about modern hand phones as "having
the world's knowledge at your finger tips". I can only assume that you
don't own a hand phone as you are so often - approaching 100% of the
time - wrong.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 3:43:00 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 11:44:47 PM UTC-7, news18 wrote:

I'm wondering if that was ever true?
From what I've read on modern US gun distribution, while the averages
might indicate that, the major problem is the large "collections' of guns
with out the same number of fingers to pull triggers

WW II should have ended any such doubts. There were nearly 2 million
Americans involved in the D-Day landings. That was larger than the
entire Japanese Army for one single action.

It seems that Truth really is stranger than Fiction:

https://www.historyonthenet.com/d-day-statistics
The British and Canadians put 75,215 troops ashore, and the Americans
57,500, for a total of 132,715.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...t-World_War_II
In 1945 the Imperial Japanese Army was comprised of 5 million active
duty troops in 145 divisions (includes three Imperial Guard).

But on second thoughts, if we assume that the Truth is that Tom simply
doesn't know what he is talking about than Truth becomes the common,
ordinary, facts, while Tom becomes the fiction.

Remember in the "old days"? We had "funny Books" picture stories
extolling heroes like Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon, and all those
"super Heroes"?

Sorry to say, we no longer have the "Funny Books" for kids to collect
and trade, no more fantasy, no more super heroes.

In this modern age the only "fantasy" we have left is Tom.

Also, in case you missed it - the entire Japanese military in 1944 WHEN THEY ATTACKED PEARL HARBOR was 1.7 million men. The possible invasion of America was what we were talking about - or have you forgotten that so soon?

But Tom, the stated intent of the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor
wasn't to invade the U.S. it was, and was so stated to be, an attempt
to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

By the way, your figures of 1.7 million men and the possibly invasion
of the U.S. is delusional at best as while the Imperial Japanese Army
strength in 1941 was 1.7 million, in some 51 divisions, 40 divisions
of of these troops were stationed in China.

So for your imaginary invasion of the U.S. some 11 divisions, about
20% of the army was available.

That in 1945 after almost continuous defeat and the looming threat of
American invasion they drafted almost every able bodied Japanese. Most
of them did even know how to hold a rifle let alone shoot one.
Virtually none of them were good for any extraneous jobs such as
maintenance of the Navy or Air Force. The Zero's were falling to
pieces even against the Flying Tigers and there was nothing they could
present against the P-51. Hell, I believe that until half-way through
the Korean War that the F-51 had a much higher kill ratio against
Migs.

I think I'd have to ask for a little backup for that statement as to
my personal knowledge there were no F-51 units assigned to actual air
combat and the units stationed in Korea were assigned to ground
support missions and nothing I've read to date indicates that the F-51
was particularly effective against the Chinese MIG-15's.

Again, you do not surprise me.
--
cheers,

John B.