Slashdot Mirror


Tuxedo Park

Steve Mushero writes "Alfred Loomis - Lawyer, Wall St. Tycoon, Scientist, Inventor, Catalyst. This biography follows the life and times of Alfred Loomis of Tuxedo Park, NY, a man I'd never heard of. Imagine my surprise to read the book jacket, which described him as one of the most powerful men on Wall Street in the 1920's, a brilliant physicist, inventor of RADAR, LORAN, and the man who kicked off the race to build the atom bomb. While far from a historian, I follow economic and military history with some interest and have never even heard this man's name; which, it turns out, was the way he wanted it." Read more about this obscure but important scientist and entrepreneur in the rest of Steve's review, below. Tuxedo Park: A Wall Street Tycoon and the Secret Palace of Science That Changed the Course of World War II author Jennet Conant pages 330 publisher Simon & Schuster rating 8 reviewer Steve Mushero ISBN 0684872870 summary A biography of one of the greatest scientists and catalysts of our time, helping inventing RADAR and LORAN along with jumpstarting the Manhattan Project.

Loomis, a Harvard lawyer from a well-to-do WASP family, went from practicing law to doing artillery research in WWI to one of the most spectacular accumulations of Wall Street wealth in the go-go 1920's. He personally drove the creation of the electric utility industry and helped form or run most of the major Wall Street banks of the day (nearly all of which are still with us in original or merged form). Smart enough to see the 1929 crash coming, he sold his stocks early and entered the depression worth $50-100 million, all in cash.

How did he use this money ? By retiring to his real love, science and inventing, eventually being elected to the National Academy of Science. A brilliant man, at parties he would often play several games of chess simultaneously, with his back to the boards and while maintaining lively conversation with his other guests. When tackling scientific problems, he generated dozens of ideas to try and had dozens of teams running down these ideas, setting the stage for the Manhattan Project, which pursued all available avenues simultaneously.

During the Depression, Loomis built a huge laboratory in Tuxedo Park, a very wealthy enclave 40 miles northwest of New York City. The first gated community, it was largely populated by the Rockefellers, Morgans, and other rich scions of industry and finance. Considered the premier research establishment of its day, a typical day at the lab featured visits by Fermi, Lawrence, Einstein, Bohr, and scores of others, all helping Loomis work on important problems of the day.

Not content to be an observer, Loomis himself ran many of the experiments and published dozens of papers on a very wide variety of subjects. He would typically solve some major stumbling block in an area such as ultrasonics, microwaves, or biology and then leave others to work out the details.

Called to action in WWII by patriotism and is famous cousin, Henry Stimson, the War Secretary, he personally made RADAR a reality (borrowing heavily from British, who he convinced to give us all they knew), building the MIT Rad Lab from scratch into a war-time R&D lab of 5,000 people.

I had always thought RADAR played a minor role in WWII, but it turns out to have been extremely important, with nearly 25,000 units produced. It was conceived to help stop the German night raids on Britain, but beyond that helped end the U-Boat menace since Loomis' system could detect subs on the surface and even periscopes. Bombing RADARs guided bombers over the Continent and LORAN, which Loomis personally invented, guided all aircraft navigation in Europe, the Atlantic, and Pacific for the second half of the war.

Loomis helped kick off the hunt for the atom bomb more than a year before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, largely via his close friend the brilliant Nobel Laureate Ernest Lawrence at Berkeley (for whom the Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore labs are named). While Loomis did not actually work in the atom efforts (he was too busy with RADAR), he mobilized the money, scientists, and political will to make it happen. He foresaw in the 1930's how nuclear fission and Germany's war-mongering would spell bad news for the world.

The book itself paints all of this in very concrete ways, moving back and forth between Loomis' private and public life, including quotes from nearly all involved. The author is related to many players in the story, including some of Loomis' closest friends, and thus had access to personal papers and numerous family members through the ages.

Writing in a witty and sometimes humorous style ("[T]he RADAR scientists knew they needed a single transmit/receive antenna. The trouble was, no one knew how to build one.") the book is an engaging read all the way through. A fair amount of scandal is mentioned, as the book opens with the suicide of one of Loomis' closest friends (the author's great uncle) and moves from there to gradually expose all that was going on through three of the most exciting decades of this century.

The book left me very impressed with Alfred Loomis and motivated to work even harder pursue more advances in technology and science, not to mention finance. I hope none of are called to support a war effort in the manner he did, but there are many discoveries that remain for us all; if we are one-forth as productive as Alfred Loomis, we'll do very well indeed.

You can purchase Tuxedo Park from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

188 comments

  1. RADAR did play a minor role in WWII by Adam+Rightmann · · Score: 4, Funny

    but in the Korean War, he got promoted to Corporal, and could hear incoming medevac helicopters.

    --
    A. Rightmann
  2. what about Robert Alexander Watson-Watt? by nickos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    inventor of RADAR

    I might be wrong, but I thought the Brit, Robert Alexander Watson-Watt invented radar.

    1. Re:what about Robert Alexander Watson-Watt? by Knara · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, moron, read the rest of the review:

      Called to action in WWII by patriotism and is famous cousin, Henry Stimson, the War Secretary, he personally made RADAR a reality (borrowing heavily from British, who he convinced to give us all they knew), building the MIT Rad Lab from scratch into a war-time R&D lab of 5,000 people.

    2. Re:what about Robert Alexander Watson-Watt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding was that it was recognised that RADAR would benefit from the development effort that the United States could bring to bear on the project, and as such details were passed to the Americans with this aim. RADAR was in use prior to this happening and was used as part of an early warning system to allow fighter squadrons to incercept incoming bomber raids. I have checked my facts however...

    3. Re:what about Robert Alexander Watson-Watt? by nickos · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should check the facts before calling other people names:

      "In March 1936, the Orfordness group were moved to Bawdsey Manor a little further down on the Suffolk coast. By this time plans were being put into action to construct enormous radar chain of detection aerials all around the eastern coastline of England and Scotland. The first of these were built between June 1936, and June 1937"

      Let's see, 1936 was before the outbreak of WWII wasn't it?

    4. Re:what about Robert Alexander Watson-Watt? by zapfie · · Score: 0

      RADAR stands for Redundant Array of Disk Arrays of Redundancy.

      --
      slashdot!=valid HTML
    5. Re:what about Robert Alexander Watson-Watt? by elchuppa · · Score: 1

      I believe you are right. I think this is simply the guy that found a cheap way to produce magnatrons... of course I could be wrong

    6. Re:what about Robert Alexander Watson-Watt? by fraudrogic · · Score: 1

      Didn't Arthur C. Clark have a hand in the invention/concept of Radar? I could have sworn it's in his Bio on all of his books.

      --
      I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
    7. Re:what about Robert Alexander Watson-Watt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially as WWII didn't start until December 1942....

    8. Re:what about Robert Alexander Watson-Watt? by wfrp01 · · Score: 1

      That seems to be the consensus. However, like most complex technologies, there were a lot of people involved in the development of what we now call radar. I can't ever really fathom the need to give one cowboy all the credit for what are almost always large collaborative efforts. Anyway, here's a funny anecdote about the invention of the T/R switch.

      --

      --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
    9. Re:what about Robert Alexander Watson-Watt? by Selfbain · · Score: 1

      He invented Geosynchronous Communcation Sattelites.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    10. Re:what about Robert Alexander Watson-Watt? by unitron · · Score: 1

      Clarke worked with RADAR during WWII but he wasn't born long enough ago to have been around for its beginnings.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  3. I like spending less for things.... by Spoons · · Score: 0, Informative

    You can pick it up at amazon and save a few bucks

    1. Re:I like spending less for things.... by keithww · · Score: 1

      Or you can buy it from your local bookstore and not support the people that brought you the "one click patent" Don't support the IP robber barrons

    2. Re:I like spending less for things.... by b0bby · · Score: 1

      You'll want to get it from Buy.com
      then... four bucks less than Amazon & free shipping.

    3. Re:I like spending less for things.... by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      I support Amazon.com because I as a good GAWD fearing American support the perpetuation of Intellectual Property and the revenues it brings to our Holy Economy.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  4. RADAR was invented by the brits! by boldingl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    we invented RADAR! in Cambridge. I only know this because my girlfriends great grandfather worked on the project. He was also a lecturer at Cambridge University.

    1. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by greechneb · · Score: 4, Informative

      The UK, the US, and several other countries were all working on radar at the same time. British scientists had made semi-working radar systems, but what Loomis did was take their projects, refine their ideas, and actually make it work. Without Loomis, radar probably would have taken at least another 5 years to develop into a working state.

      After finishing work on the radar project, Loomis actually turned his efforts into supervising the mass production of radar systems.

    2. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes the British do have the best claim to radar but like most bid ideas a lot of people form all over the world took part in it. Now the cavity magnatron was totaly a British invention and make modern radar possible. The US can be proud that we took an expensive to make device like the magnatron and figured out how to stamp them out like cookies. I say jolly good job all around.

    3. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Here's the deal: You give us credit for RADAR, and we don't give you credit for the Spice Girls.

      Seems like a fair trade, doesn't it?

    4. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by 777333ddd · · Score: 1

      The review says in fact the British did things first but that Loomis managed to get all of the info from the British before moving the technology to a more practical level

    5. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by LinuxTek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the review does mention that Loomis borrowed heavily from the British. Like many things in life, one thing is who invents something, and another who applies that technology for mass production. It doesn't have to be the same one, and I think the review correctly states this.

      --
      Signatures are supposed to be funny?
    6. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by hcdejong · · Score: 2

      WDYM, "more practical"? By the time Loomis started working on radar, the Brits had the system that was the deciding factor in the Battle of Britain in place.

    7. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by Paul+Brown · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Erm?

      British scientists had made semi-working radar systems

      British scientists had made a totally working radar system. What they didn't have was one you could fit into a plane (for night fighting/maritime stuff/etc).

    8. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by NetFu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the basic principles of RADAR were discovered by the German physicist Heinrich Hertz in 1887.

      I've also read that the Germans were working on RADAR applications at the same time the Brits and Americans were -- it just so happens that the Brits built the first application from the research. And, technically, the man who was mainly responsible for developing RADAR into a usable application was actually a Scot, not a Brit -- Sir Robert Alexander Watson-Watt. You can talk all you want about how Great Britain includes England, Scotland, and NORTHERN Ireland, but most Irish and Scots I know would say a Scot!=Brit.

      Like most other inventions (airplanes or cars, anyone?) nothing is "invented" without the cooperation of scientists from ALL countries. There's no such thing as a single man inventing any of these things -- we may have been taught that in elementary school, but we all have to grow up and realize that things are quite a bit more complicated than that.

    9. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1
      Without Loomis, radar probably would have taken at least another 5 years to develop into a working state.

      I seem to recall that there was a demo of a radar system that could lock on to floating barrage balloons and control a mortar. I saw an old film of it, it was pretty impressive even now, the gun moved the direction it was pointing in fired, moved onto the next, fired, and one by one each baloon exploded.

      I don't recall when that was, but it was definately in England during the war.

      I guess it depends on what you mean by "working state". Radar was most useful at first simply for detecting planes flying the Blitz, rather than the sort of stuff we use it for today. BTW I work at the organization formaly known as DERA, where a lot of the radar research took place and they still do a lot of radar and tracking work to this day.

    10. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by SteveAstro · · Score: 1

      The critical component that Loomis helped produce was the Cavity magnetron, a device which gave orders of magntitude more microwave energy than the existing Klystron or travelling wave tubes.

      The Cavity Magentron was invented by Boot and Randall at the University of Birmingham (UK !!)

      The safe transport of probably the most precious cargo of WWII to the US and its subsequent rapid development to mass production is what won the war, not the atomic bomb, though it helped.

      The Magnetron and milli-metric radar is what gave us the ability to see 'U' boats. Seeing U boats allowed us to get shipping again. Shipping brought the supplies and troops from the US to start 'D' day.

      Steve

    11. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you ain't talking to the right Scots (or Irish)!

      Most Irish Protestants would rather shoot you than be called anything other than Brits. As for the Scots, less than half of them would like to be independent of Britain but aren't. So Brits too, they are.

    12. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen a picture of the British Chain-Home system? It was a major accomplishment for the time but it was huge and immobile.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    13. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by Selfbain · · Score: 1

      If I had to list the things that lead to the allied victory, the atomic bomb would be way the hell down on the list. RADAR and Cryptography would be my top two (unless I'm forgetting something). The bomb wasn't even used until the Axis had already been crushed and Japan had been forced back to their mainland. The bombs were just used to prevent the US from suffering heavy casulties in group troups.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    14. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was actually AdamandEve Co. that invented RADAR!

    15. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Zulu invented the radar.

      Isaac Zwanda Newton of Zimbabwe discovered gravity.

      Albertwanda Einsteingabe of Ethiopia wrote relativity theories.

      You white tyrants stole everything from us.

      Down with the with the white man!

    16. Re:RADAR was invented by the brits! by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was huge and immobile. But that doesn't mean it was impractical. It achieved its objective, ie early warning against German air raids.

      Loomis' main contribution seems to have been the mass production of magnetrons. A significant contribution, for sure, but one that was more a matter of logistics than British inability.

  5. Tuxedo ? by selderrr · · Score: 0, Funny

    You mean Jackie Chan kicked off the race to build the atom bomb ?

    That explains the broken foot...

  6. At first glance by Soporific · · Score: 1

    This seems to be one of the more interesting books that's been reviewed on Slashdot. One I might actually go and look for at a book store.

    ~S

  7. LORAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    long-range radio navigation

  8. Minus 1 plagiarism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Congratulations, you have a incredible grasp of the concept of copy and paste.

    It's the Amazon review. I see you doing this in every book review thread. Fuck off already.

  9. Don't be silly, it had to be an American! by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Funny

    Silly boy, don't you know the Americans invented and achieved everything? The first computer was not invented by Charles Babbage, Sir Isaac Newton didn't discover the laws of Physics, it wasn't Crick and Watson who discovered DNA and, most importantly of all, it was the Yanks and not the Brits (or even the Poles) who first captured working Enigma machines during World War 2!

    Why, even that less than stellar inventor Al Gore came up with the internet! That Tim Berners-Lee guy (and the folks at ARPANET) were a figment of everyone else's imagination!

    Anyone else fed up of revisionist history? Is is right that the version of Microsoft Encarta sold in the US credits Bell as inventing the telephone but that the one sold in Italy says it was Marconi? And that neither version even mentions the other guy, even in passing?

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Don't be silly, it had to be an American! by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you're right Watson was an American. But Crick wasn't. I should have put brackets around Watson's name in my original post but forgot to do so. Mea culpa.

      Regardless, the research they performed together was conducted at Cambridge - the original Cambridge in England, not the one in New England. Crick was by far the more senior figure (12 years more older than Watson) and it was he rather than Watson who led their team.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    2. Re:Don't be silly, it had to be an American! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if Bell invented the telephone, he was living in Canada (he patented in the USA for market reasons) and I believe Marconi did his testing in Newfoundland.

    3. Re:Don't be silly, it had to be an American! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      watch what you say about italians. 99% of them think they invented pasta.

    4. Re:Don't be silly, it had to be an American! by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      They did, they were making pasta before marco polo was born.

      Believe it if you will.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    5. Re:Don't be silly, it had to be an American! by CharlesEGrant · · Score: 1

      Watson WAS an American.

      Marconi invented wireless radio, not the telephone. Bell and Gray independently invented the telephone in the 1870s. Macroni's work came almost 30 years later.

      Your intended point is well taken, but you undercut yourself when you screw up your history so badly.

    6. Re:Don't be silly, it had to be an American! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and 99.99% probably didn't realize that tomatoes didn't exist there until it was brought over from the new world.

    7. Re:Don't be silly, it had to be an American! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot one other thing that Americans invented, that new computer operating system Linux, that was invented by the same guy that used to draw Charlie Brown and Snoopy.

    8. Re:Don't be silly, it had to be an American! by Selfbain · · Score: 1

      The funny part about the Enigma machine 'capture' in U-571 is that the British had built working replicas already but it didn't do much good since the machine by itself is mostly useless if you don't know the setup. The British needed Alan Turing more than they needed the machine itself.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    9. Re:Don't be silly, it had to be an American! by Selfbain · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a /. story recently where the Supreme Court had ruled that Bell DIDN'T invent the telephone but had ripped it off from the inventor who couldn't afford to patent it?

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
  10. Obscure name by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 1, Funny
    "...and have never even heard this man's name; which, it turns out, was the way he wanted it."

    Until his book ends up on Slashdot and then *EVERYONE* knows his name... =)

    --
    Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
    1. Re:Obscure name by Sunda666 · · Score: 0

      yeah, right.

      *EVERYONE* reads slashdot...

      (...)

      cheers

      --


      ``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
  11. Nationalist History. by FreeLinux · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm always amused by this type of nationalist history where, people of various nations "adjust" the facts to take credit for work that isn't entirely their own. The Russian's are exceptionally good at this, as they claim to have invented the telephone, television, flight and probably RADAR too.

    Englishman, Watt, was most definitely the inventor of RADAR. The Americans knew nothing about it until they were approached by the British regarding the need for a process to manufacture a single component in high volumes. This process, developed at Westinhouse, turned out to be the simple lamination of copper plates to make the part. The information about RADAR that was learned by the Americans lead to further R&D on Loomis' part as well as Westinghouse's development of the Microwave oven, the RADAR Range.

    Loomis did contribute a lot of R&D to the further advancement of RADAR but, he most certainly did not invent it.

    1. Re:Nationalist History. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This component would be the cavity magnetron, developed in the UK - the example which was transported to the US (with no security) has been described as the single most valuable cargo ever to transit the Atlantic.

    2. Re:Nationalist History. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it was Raytheon, not Westinghouse, that developed the microwave oven, using the term "radarrange" in 1947. Raytheon aquired Amana, since they did not have a commerical products division, to market it as the Amana RadarRange oven.

      For more, see this link...

      http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/history.html

  12. The inventor of RADAR.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine that, the inventor of RADAR from Tuxedo Park, NY..... HAHAA..

  13. What about Robert Watson Watt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always thought RADAR was developed by the Scottish scientist Robert Watson-Watt.

    1. Re:What about Robert Watson Watt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of Robert Watson-Watt the Scottish soccer hooligan

  14. LoomCo by Poeir · · Score: 3, Funny

    Alfred Loomis, "one of the most powerful men on Wall Street in the 1920's, a brilliant physicist, inventor of RADAR, LORAN, and the man who kicked off the race to build the atom bomb."

    Alfred Loomis? Are you sure that's not Ron Popeil?

    --
    Sigs are like bumper stickers.
    1. Re:LoomCo by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Alfred? You mean BATMAN'S BUTLER invented RADAR? Well, ok. That makes sense.

    2. Re:LoomCo by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      You must be confused. You obviously haven't taken your coral calcium. I bet your DNA is all acidic and isn't replicating fast enough!

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  15. Not quite! by Draoi · · Score: 2, Informative
    he personally made RADAR a reality (borrowing heavily from British, who he convinced to give us all they knew)

    Not quite the same thing as "inventor of RADAR", as the reviewer stated. Credit where it's due .....

    --
    Alison

    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein

    1. Re:Not quite! by Draoi · · Score: 1
      [Karma whoring for fun and profit]

      A google search threw up this link which discusses in detail the invention of RADAR (invented by a Scotsman, BTW). Anyways ...

      --
      Alison

      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein

  16. Radar in WWII by fruey · · Score: 3, Informative
    I had always thought RADAR played a minor role in WWII, but it turns out to have been extremely important, with nearly 25,000 units produced. It was conceived to help stop the German night raids on Britain

    It was conceived in order to see at night, actually. Radar will up show coastlines and cityscapes clearly at night, through cloud cover. The resolution was very poor, but it allowed the RAF to attack Germany. It was not so much a defensive gadget, it was more for a primitive night vision. Plane mounted radar was a decisive factor in the war in the air over Europe.

    Seeing German planes coming wasn't a problem, they could be detected by noise (they had to bomb from low down) and only stopped by launching bad surface to air missiles (there were of course plenty of coast stations armed with guns and launchers) or launching the RAF squadrons to attack them.

    Accuracy was the key really, and that is what RADAR allowed at night, or from above low clouds during the day.

    --
    Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    1. Re:Radar in WWII by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      Actually, radar made a big difference during the Battle of Britain.

      Quote from that site: Britain had one great advantage, radar. Invented by a Scotsman, James Watson Watt, it was still rudimentary and often unreliable but it allowed Fighter Command to have a good idea of where German attacks were heading and how strong they were. It allowed the RAF to keep its planes on the ground until they were needed and then the fighter controllers would vector them in onto the attackers. It was a less than perfect system but it was the best in the world at that time, and it worked.

    2. Re:Radar in WWII by sandbenders · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that the initial use for Radar was as an early-warning system set up on the English coast and islands/platforms in the English Channel to detect the presence of incoming German bombers. When the Brits had some advanced warning, they could put up a screen of fighters to meet the incoming bombers.

      I wonder if the platform that Sealand is built on is left over from this kind of duty?

      --
      Eagles may fly, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
    3. Re:Radar in WWII by fruey · · Score: 1

      You're probably right. Re-reading my post I said "RADAR was conceived" when now I think about it night vision over Germany was a cool side-effect, but I have seen historic footage of that on TV and remember a few pilots saying how what really helped their attacks was RADAR

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    4. Re:Radar in WWII by Espen · · Score: 1
      Amazing! I can't spot find anything even remotely accurate in that description of the role of the RADAR in WWII. Where on earth did you get this?



      RADAR was, as the name suggests, designed for Detection and Ranging, and very luckily for Britain a significant number were integrated into Fighter Command, the sophisticated command and control network which received raw information from radar plots and rapidly assessed it to determine numbers and trajectories of incoming enemy aircraft. This allowed them to direct the use of Britains scarce resources of pilots and aircraft to the best possible effect. It played a huge part in the Battle of Britain where the Brits were greatly outnumbered by the Luftwaffe, but could respond by putting up the right number of fighters at the rigth time. Before the RADAR they would have had to guess.

    5. Re:Radar in WWII by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      Remember to that radar was instrumental in locating, tracking, and somewhat in the sinking of the Bismarck. It helped keep battle groups together, helped guide battleship and cruiser fire, helped locate u-boats. The largest and most effective use of radar during WW2 was at sea.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    6. Re:Radar in WWII by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1

      Radar was invented to help see German planes coming. Think about it. You're on an island. You have a lot of coast to watch. Sure, you could have guys on the ground with bionocluars, but they can only see so far. In comes radar, allowing the british to see the german formations forming up over france before they came in, and dispatch the RAF to be waiting for them when they came in.

  17. Another Loomis ? by Interrupting+Cow · · Score: 0
    The Loomis Laboratory of Physics at the University of Illinois is named after an F.W. Loomis. They have a nice bio there. He also went to an ivy-league school, also worked for the Army Ordanance Dept in WW1, and also worked for the MIT Radiation Laboratory in WW2. Wierd. I wonder if they were related?

    --
    in terminus illic est tantum opes
    1. Re:Another Loomis ? by piwowk · · Score: 1

      Francis Wheeler Loomis directed MIT's RadLab for some time starting in 1941. He was later the first director of MIT Lincoln Laboratory (1951-52) (previously Project Charles).

      I too found the similarities eery. I haven't found any indication of relations though.

  18. Radar invention - more info by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Informative

    Depending on your definition of 'invent', you can go as far back as 1880 (finding that radio waves reflect) or 1924(first succesful radio ranging) for the invention of radar.

    Practical radar systems were first built in 1935 by Watson-Watt.

    AFAI can determine, Loomis didn't get into the radar business until 1939, when he copeid all the information the British had.

  19. Re:I couldn't put it down by kokomaster · · Score: 1

    He was obviously a time-traveller who went back to stop the Nazi.

  20. Read the review not the editors summary by keithww · · Score: 1

    The reviewer said he made RADAR a reality not that he invented it, even stating that he got information from the british. The summary said he invented it.

    1. Re:Read the review not the editors summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, but IMHO an editors summary should contain a summary of information, not a distortion.

    2. Re:Read the review not the editors summary by elvum · · Score: 1

      In fact, he did neither. AFAICT he did some useful optimisation work that helped miniaturise radar equipment so that it could be fitted to 'planes, but it was both invented and a reality long before he got his hands on the technology. Perhaps he made the first system with the name "RADAR"? The original British name for the system was "HFDF" (High Frequency Direction Finding, pronounced "huffduff").

  21. Watson-Watt invented it, Loomis enhanced it by BigTom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Watson-Watt Invented it

    "Watson-Watt became the superintendent of the radio division of the National Physics Laboratory in Teddington. In 1936 his radio stations were able to detect aircraft up to 70 miles away."

    "He persuaded the government to set up a network of radar stations to provide early warning of aircraft attacking over the English Channel. "Radar" was short for "radio detecting and ranging." It was due to radar that the over-stretched resources of the RAF were able to be in the right place at the right time as Luftwaffe aircraft streamed over during the Battle of Britain from August to October 1940. The Germans could not understand why the defending aircraft (such as the Spitfire, illustrated above) were so often there to meet them."

    Loomis helped mass produce it for mobile use and developed it

    "In the 1930s, British scientists were at the cutting edge of radar technology. While crude by modern standards, their systems could spot Nazi bombers up to 150 miles from the English coast, enough of a warning for Royal Air Force fighters to intercept them. But the radar apparatus was too bulky to mount in planes, and the equipment was not sensitive enough to detect a U-boat's periscope. That changed in early 1940, when physicists at the University of Birmingham invented the magnetron. This plump copper disk was only four inches across, but its glass horns emitted short-wavelength pulses of extremely high power--just the ticket for small radars that could probe much farther and resolve details far finer than any previous system."

    "When Prime Minister Winston Churchill learned of the magnetron, he sensed that it marked a turning point in the war. Given the state of British industry, though, he needed U.S. help in refining the magnetron and, most of all, producing them in volume. That August, he sent a mission to Washington, where it presented a top-secret magnetron to astonished U.S. researchers."

    So, as usual, a joint effort.

    BigTom

    1. Re:Watson-Watt invented it, Loomis enhanced it by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      joint effort as in: the British invent it, tha Americans steal it and claim it as their own?

      Bell X-1 anyone?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
  22. RADAR: an interesting fact by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To keep the Germans in the dark (pun intended) about the invention of RADAR, the British fed the Germans a clever disinformation story to explain the Royal Air Force's superior performance combatting the Luftwaffe's night-time incursions into British airspace.

    The reason spoon-fed to the Nazis (via British double agents) for the RAF's sucess was that their pilots were being fed lots of carrots, which helped to improve the aviators' eyesight and hence improve their accuracy.

    Of course, this was all rubbish but the myth that eating carrots can dramatically improve your eyesight still lives on today.

    The ruse played its part though - by the time the Germans discovered the true story, the Battle of Britain had been won.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:RADAR: an interesting fact by TerryAtWork · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was taught in the militia in Canada that the carrots thing for night vision was taught to the public and British Airmen knowing full well some would be captured and tell the Germans.

      The TRUTH was they used red lights in the cockpit. They do not ruin night vision and the powers that be did not need the Germans adapting it.

      I remember my mom feeding me carrots as a kid, telling me it would improve my night vision.

      After we were taught this in the Canadian militia, we all got to strip and assemble the regiment's rifle.

      --
      It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
    2. Re:RADAR: an interesting fact by uberdave · · Score: 1

      But carrots ARE good for your eyesight... I mean, have you ever seen a rabbit wearing glasses?

    3. Re:RADAR: an interesting fact by unitron · · Score: 1
      "After we were taught this in the Canadian militia, we all got to strip and assemble the regiment's rifle."

      You all got naked and played with a long straight firm object? Maybe you should away from carrots.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  23. Bastard! by nick_davison · · Score: 2, Informative

    and LORAN, which Loomis personally invented, guided all aircraft navigation in Europe, the Atlantic, and Pacific for the second half of the war.

    It even guided the Germans and Japanese? Bloody sell out!

    I realise this may come as a shock to some US readers, but the Second World War started in '39, not December 7th 1941. Half way through therefore being 41/42 as opposed to 1943. At that point the Germans were very definitely still bombing a lot and the Japanese (who'd been fairly busy for a decade already) were just getting started on Pearl Harbour.

    Don't get me wrong, everyone (well, except possibly the Germans and Japanese) appreciate you turning up at all, just stop taking so much damn offence when all the Europeans turn up to your wars (like Iraq) two years late.

    1. Re:Bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't get me wrong, everyone (well, except possibly the Germans and Japanese) appreciate you turning up at all, just stop taking so much damn offence when all the Europeans turn up to your wars (like Iraq) two years late.

      Hell, y'all will be too late to even help in "nation building" in Iraq. I suppose y'all will get whiney and upset if we make Iraq the 51st state...

    2. Re:Bastard! by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      Well it can't be helped if it takes us a long time to come out on one side of one of your European wars.

      -- You all look alike.

      Just a little joke.

      Jonathan

    3. Re:Bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well some people might not consider it a "World" War until the last of the major countries was involved.

    4. Re:Bastard! by praksys · · Score: 1

      These days two years late equates to about a year and a half after the war is over.

      Actually it doesn't bother me that non-US nations would rather not be involved in US wars (their choice), but it does bother me when democracies that were created by US military action stand in the way when the US wants to create another democracy or two.

    5. Re:Bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL....the US has no interest in installing a democracy in Iraq. You can't control the vast political and religous ideologies in Iraq with a democracy...that would lead to civil war.

    6. Re:Bastard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, does creating a democracy not include giving the state a right to decide its own foreign policy? Or is the process of creating democracies rampant expansionism by any other name?

      Don't worry, I know the answer to this one, and it doesn't involve the word "gratitude" in any way.
      What is it about a democracy, US-style, as opposed to any alternative form of government, that is so holy that anything that stands in the way of its creation must be sheer evil to be stamped out? Granted, there are evils that do need to be disposed of, but they do not include disagreeing with the US. Creating a democratic state must necessarily allow for the possibility that the people of that state may not like what you're doing, and you've just given them the power to do something about it.

      I do hope that I've just over-reacted to a late-night off-the-cuff statement, but I have a horrible feeling that the automatic assumption that the US is unquestionably right in wandering around, "creating democracies," is all too prevalent, even if it was not the root cause of this specific parent comment.

    7. Re:Bastard! by praksys · · Score: 1

      What is it about a democracy, US-style, as opposed to any alternative form of government, that is so holy that anything that stands in the way of its creation must be sheer evil to be stamped out?

      I am a godless heathen, so I do not literally think that that there is anything holy about democracy, but I do think that there is something deeply right about "government of the people, by the people, and the people". If you want to know why then you could read Locke, or you could just spend a little time trying to think of anything which could make a government legitimate apart from the consent of the governed.

      Granted, there are evils that do need to be disposed of, but they do not include disagreeing with the US. Creating a democratic state must necessarily allow for the possibility that the people of that state may not like what you're doing, and you've just given them the power to do something about it.

      No argument here - my point was just that the Germans and the French seem to *like* their own democratic regimes and it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical that they are now so violently opposed to the idea of the US confering the same benefits on other nations.

    8. Re:Bastard! by zatz · · Score: 1

      The purest form of democracy is mob rule. In a government there is always a minority of people who do not consent to the rules, and a minority of rules to which people do not consent. Societies which keep everyone working together to a certain extent, whether they like it or not, just seem more succesful.

      The last time the US went to Iraq, we conferred no benefits on them. None. There was no rebuilding and no aid. Just bombings which killed many, followed by sanctions which starved many more.

      What the Germans and the French find offensive is that the US feels it can make these decisions alone--the Bush administration wants to violate a UN resolution to enforce that same UN resolution And that our policy on Iraq is partly personal vendetta and partly in the service of cheap oil; improving the life of the average Iraqi is the last of our concerns.

      --

      Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
    9. Re:Bastard! by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      I'd probably be halfway happy if we did. We can either:

      1) Prop up some asshole dictator who'll give us cheap oil until he goes nuts and starts eating jailed Saddam supporters

      2) Prop up some half-assed democracy that'll degenerate into a extremist Islamic state within 3 elections since the people aren't ready or happy for it

      3) Make it into another horribly hot, non-english speaking, tourist-oriented, semi-socialist, low-taxed territory that we'll use as a bombing range

      4) Make it a state and have some of the most hilarious national elections in years. Yee-haw!

      I like it.

    10. Re:Bastard! by praksys · · Score: 1

      The purest form of democracy is mob rule.

      Care to explain this? Democracy is government by the people. When people behave as a mob there is no governing going on, and certainly nothing that looks like a system that is set up to allow every member of society to play a part in any governing that does happen. Mob "rule" is not even a type of democracy, let alone the purest type.

      In a government there is always a minority of people who do not consent to the rules, and a minority of rules to which people do not consent.

      True enough, but you are looking in the wrong place for the consent of the governed. It is not consent to every action taken by government or law passed, but consent to the constitution (i.e. the system by which government determines what will be done) that matters. In any democracy it is usually easy to find people who disagree with particular government actions, but usually hard to find people who actually want to overthrow the government.

      As long as all *reasonable* people in a society do not want to overthrow the government, you have the consent of the governed. Now in principle it is possible to get this without having a democracy (that is without having a system in which the people actually play a role in governing) but it doesn't happen very often or very reliably.

      The last time the US went to Iraq, we conferred no benefits on them. None. There was no rebuilding and no aid. Just bombings which killed many, followed by sanctions which starved many more.

      This is not entirely true. Northern Iraq, which was effectively occupied, has enjoyed considerable benefits. Anyway if your point is just that the US should have gone all the way to Bagdad the last time around then I am right with you.

      What the Germans and the French find offensive is that the US feels it can make these decisions alone--

      Which would explain why France and Germany both anounced thier own final decisions *before* the second meeting of the security council that they were so insistent on setting up? People may well fear that the US will act unilaterally but, so far on this issue, the US has not. France and Germany on the other hand have made it clear that they will not support any resolution to go to war (France even threatend a veto) - which is unilateral action - and a departure from the process that they agreed to in the first resolution.

    11. Re:Bastard! by unitron · · Score: 1

      Straight democracy is majority rule. Sometimes the mob is in the majority. Demcracy needs to be tempered with protections against the tyranny of the majority.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    12. Re:Bastard! by zatz · · Score: 1

      You have redefined democracy more narrowly, perhaps as "constitutional representative democracy". Perhaps that is what the US is theoretically in the business of creating. Whatever.

      I'll be happy to join Bush in condeming Hussein as evil, although not because "he tried to kill my daddy". That doesn't mean that replacing him with anything which will actually improve the lot of the average Iraqi is easy, or that military force is the best way to do it.

      The nascent Kurdish state in Northern Iraq is interesting. It sure makes the Turks nervous, because they have a large Kurd population. Left to itself, Iraq may splinter several ways. Even if that is ultimately for the best, a violent transition to such a state is not.

      Indeed, so far, the US has not acted unilaterally; unless perhaps you consider our documented placement of CIA agents among the inspectors back in 1998 :) We have said repeatedly that we keep the option of unilateral action open. You are criticizing UN member states for operating *via the UN*, calling that unilateral. It's not, it doesn't compare to saying "we reserve the right to ignore whatever decision comes out of the UN". A veto is still playing by the rules.

      --

      Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
  24. Re:I couldn't put it down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I'm thinking he's Data, or perhaps Dr. Bashir. These extra-temporal/terrestrial visitors have to keep a low profile. When do we get the transparent aluminium?

  25. I'm sure there were lots of people who... by Cranx · · Score: 1

    ...sold their stocks right before the stock market crash of 1929. Lots of people. They were the smart ones. Yep.

    1. Re:I'm sure there were lots of people who... by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Maybe. How many people were smart enough to sell their stocks before the .com crash?

  26. Interview and History on NPR by Cuthbert+Calculus · · Score: 3, Informative
    A little while ago NPR did a nice story on this--very interesting.

    Here's the link to the interview with the author... http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfI d=1146217

  27. Try 1937 by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    I realize this may come as a shock to some Western readers, but the Second World War started in '37, when Japan invaded China, not September 1st 1939. Or do Chinese deaths and war not count?

    1. Re:Try 1937 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      damn straight. too many of them damn chinks anyhow

    2. Re:Try 1937 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japan wanted to be a regional superpower.

      They had no intentions of taking on the world.

      Hitler had well documented designs on the world.

      So really, that wasn't the start of World War 2.

    3. Re:Try 1937 by Tardigrade · · Score: 1

      They don't count as a World War, just a major regional war. You need at least 3 or 4 continents involved in entangling alliances and inter-alliance conflict before you can call it a World War.

  28. Re:Used and Used! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A link to purchase the book being reviewed is modded as offtopic? That's a little strange.

  29. Roosevelt by Detritus · · Score: 1

    Roosevelt helped as much as he could, within the constraints of American politics. The United States may have been "neutral" on paper, in practice it provided substantial assistance to the UK and USSR. Roosevelt conceived, and pushed through congress, the Lend-Lease Act, and ordered the Navy to patrol and escort merchant ships in the Western Atlantic.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Roosevelt by Opie812 · · Score: 0

      The lend-lease Act?

      That had more to do with lining the pockets of American industry than helping the Allies.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    2. Re:Roosevelt by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it was also the closest Roosevelt could get Congress to come to helping out Europe. Nobody wanted some stupid war, we were too busy trying not to be poor. That's why there's always been some idea that Roosevelt might have had something to do with Perl Harbor, even if only by making attractive military targets and pissing off Japan. He was the only one pushing for war. That's why we got attacked by Japan and yet ran straight for France anyway.

  30. Re:Phirst Poast! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's par for the course for a slashbot.

  31. RADAR controlled anti-aircraft guns by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 1
    I assume you are talking about WWII era stuff?

    My dad was in the US Army after Korea, and was a service technition on some of the guns they were developing at that time. Recently, he was telling me about some of it. Apparently, the prototypes had an analog computing element that was essentially mechanical. Those never made it into production because they wouldn't work well unless you kept the mechanism moving (probably either or both static friction and followers making little dents and getting stuck). The vaccume tube based stuff worked better. The first models could only track a straight line path.

  32. Rad Lab by Detritus · · Score: 1

    The MIT Radiation Lab did an immense amount of work during World War II in research, development, design, testing and training for radar systems. It was second only to the Manhattan Project as a concentration of scientific and engineering talent. Their contribution to the war effort was very significant.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Rad Lab by elvum · · Score: 1

      In that case, there are probably hundreds of other people who deserve as much credit as Loomis :-)

  33. Re:kde has more vulnerabilities than windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can you say KDE is offtopic in an article about Miguel de Icaza?

  34. Centimetre Wave (SHF and above) Radar by hughk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The chain of radar stations constructed in the late thirties were VHF/UHF only.

    The problem was that the wavelengths used were not sufficiently well reflected by smaller objects such as periscopes or to give the resolution neccessary for bomb navigation. Hence the invention of the magnetron by the British which produced RF at 3cm or above at high power. Unfortunately British industry couldn't produce the device cheaply enough (a magnetron dpends upon a very precisely engineered cavity). Loomis was responsible for the ideas for mass production of the magnetron in the mid 40s.

    The magnetron was used in warships and by planes (such as night fighters) but it was not permitted over German held territory until towards the end of the war so it didn't help bomber command much (the Americans flew by day, so they had less problems with navigation). It was decided that the wreckage of a magnetron (it is basiclly a precisely machined lump of metal) would give German intelligence enough information to be able to duplicate it.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
    1. Re:Centimetre Wave (SHF and above) Radar by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      The magnetron is also credited to a Dutch engineer (mr. Staal, who worked for Philips), who created one in 1935.

      More on Dutch contributions to radar development here.

    2. Re:Centimetre Wave (SHF and above) Radar by hughk · · Score: 1
      Actually, this seems like it is another of those things with a varied history (depends on where you came from). The Encylopedia Britannica and the IEEE put the inventor as an American in 1921. However Calpoly credit Randall and Boot for making an invention in 1940. However the Japenese invented the divided anode magnetron in 1928. Most agree that an american, Spencer invented the microwave oven though.

      I suppose the truth of it is probably that the compact and relatively high power magnetron was invented by the British for use in radar and this was why a prototype was sent to the US as they didn't know how to make them in this form before. The previous microwave amplifiers such as the klystron were large, fragile an not so efficient.

      It was these factors (size, robustness and efficiency) that made the magentron so useful for mobile warfare.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  35. Re:I couldn't put it down by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 1

    I realize you are making a joke here, but if the information is accurate, he was a genius and a particularly gregarious one at that. He obviously could keep many lines of thought going at once and quickly engage in any of them and produce deep insights. All of this would seem very self-promotional if he wasn't also intensly private about much of it. Seems like a lot to accept, but genius can be truely remarkable.

  36. Re:First Karma burn! by tps12 · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty disappointed. The Jackie Chan joke could have been done so well with a little effort. "Wow, sounds like a good book. I didn't like the movie much, but then again I'm not a huge Jackie Chan fan." Bam, 20 seconds; you're still in the running for first post, and you might even get some positive mods. Such a waste.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
  37. Radar: from the book "Confound and Destroy" by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    Here's one credible referance, "Confound & Destroy - 100 Group and the bomber support campaign" by Martin Streetly:

    "During the 1930s, as Europe prepared itself for a seemingly inevitable war, Britain and Germany began the practice of 'seeing' with radio energy. Radar, as this branch of electronics would later be known, was not new; the principle had been laid out by a German, Christian Hulsmeyer , in a patent of April 1904. "

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  38. You're geography is screwed by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    Great Britain comprises of England, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to give it its full name) comprises of those three nations and Norther Ireland.

    By definition, if you're from any of those four countries then you're British - there isn't an equivalent adjective for the United Kingdom so it applies to the Northern Irish too. For example, the British Olympic Association is made up of athletes from all four nations.

    (Please, no unnecessary debating about the Northern Ireland situation - this isn't a political posting, it's a geographical one.)

    Saying that someone who's Scottish isn't British is ridiculous. It's like saying that someone who's a Californian or Floridian isn't American. Just because you're associated to one place doesn't mean you're not associated to a larger place that encapsulates it.

    Of course, being Scottish doesn't make you English, as so many American sitcoms seem to think (Suddenly Susan springs to mind as a particularly guilty party). Saying that it does is about as stupid as suggesting that someone from Alaska is a Texan.

    So, to recap:

    Glasgow > Scotland > Great Britain > United Kingdom > European Union > Europe

    and;

    Los Angeles > California > United States of America > North America

    Hope that's useful for future reference.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:You're geography is screwed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      First, I know this is offtopic, but I just wanted to point something out.
      (Please, no unnecessary debating about the Northern Ireland situation - this isn't a political posting, it's a geographical one.)

      Actually, you made it a political comment when you said
      By definition, if you're from any of those four countries then you're British - there isn't an equivalent adjective for the United Kingdom so it applies to the Northern Irish too
      .
      If you are talking geography, people who leave in the big island (Great Britain) are brits. People who leave in the smaller one (Ireland) are irish. Period. "Geographically", there are no brits in Ireland. Now, if you wanna talk politics, let's talk politics.
    2. Re:You're geography is screwed by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      If you are talking geography, people who leave in the big island (Great Britain) are brits. People who leave in the smaller one (Ireland) are irish. Period. "Geographically", there are no brits in Ireland. Now, if you wanna talk politics, let's talk politics.

      I assume you meant "live" when you said "leave" just like I meant "Your geography is screwed" or You're geographically screwed" and not what I wrote as the subject line of this thread.

      Anyhow, on to the heart of the matter.

      Technically, you're right. And, technically, so am I. Because the entire archipelagos that comprises the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland (or, if you like, Great Britain and Ireland), is called the British Isles.

      In practice, people from the Republic of Ireland would never refer to themselves as British (for obvious reasons) whilst people from Northern Ireland would describe themselves as either British or Irish according to their individual personal preferences. Ask a loyalist and he'll say he's British. Ask a republican and he'll say he's Irish. (And there's a glimpse of the politics that I was trying so hard to avoid.)

      It still doesn't change the fact that someone who's Scottish is inherently British, which is the point I was trying to make originally.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    3. Re:You're geography is screwed by unitron · · Score: 1
      "It's like saying that someone who's a Californian or Floridian isn't American."

      Your example would have been better if it had included a resident of a North or South American country other than the United States of America.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  39. Re:Membership Violation by hondo77 · · Score: 1

    This is not flamebait, stoopid moderator. Somebody mod this guy up and the parent down (sorry, I don't have any points to play with today).

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  40. Re:First Karma burn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I thought the "fuck it, it's friday" segue into an intentional mixing up of Tuxedo the movie and this book was much funnier. It sort of had the feel of "It's friday, I'm too lazy to even read the entire title of this article, so I'll just go with the first thing that comes to mind from the first word". Well done.

    The approach you were suggesting is actually kind of tired and overused.

  41. wrong location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the research was done at cold spring harbor in LI NY!!

    1. Re:wrong location by CharlesEGrant · · Score: 1

      Nope. Watson became the director of CSHL in 1969 and has been associated with it ever since.

      Watson and Crick did their work on the structure of DNA at Cambridge University in the UK. The X-ray crystallography data they used was produced by Franklin and Wilkins at Kings College in London.

  42. Re:No it was Tesla...Marconi is a Marketer by lugonn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nikola Tesla Invented(discovered) radio waves. All Marconi did was figure out how to market 1-way radios to the public. He "invented" radio stations that got paid by airing advertising during radio shows. Before Marconi, 2-way radios were used for communication only, Marconi figured out how to use them for entertainment. Marconi was not an inventor, he was an entrepreneur...and the first corporate pirate...and a big bastard.

  43. Creators the Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please name one democracy US created. I really can't remember any at the moment.
    I do remember, however, some dictatorial regimes that US have installed and/or supported, all along the XX century. Just a few of them are:
    - Batista @ Cuba.
    - Trujillo @ Republica Dominicana.
    - Perez Gimenez @ Venezuela.
    - Pinochet @ Chile.
    - Stroessner @ Paraguay.
    - Argentinian "Junta Militar" (military board) after the coup of 1976.
    - Uruguayan idem in 1973.
    - Somoza(s) @ Nicaragua.
    - Royal Families in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, etc.

    I mean, come on! US does not 'export' Democracy, don't be naive! All they care about is BUSINESS, you know?

    1. Re:Creators the Democracy? by praksys · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As someone else has already pointed out there are quite a few countries where the US played a vital role in creating democratic regimes.

      In some countries the US literally manufactured democracy from whole cloth, right down to writing new constitutions for them (Germany, Japan, and a few more, maybe including Afganistan, although the verdict isn't in yet).

      In some countries the US restored democracy after invading and ousting foreign powers, or domestic dictatorships (Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Grenada, Panama, and many others).

      In some countries the US took indirect military action to establish democracy (Nicaragua for example).

      Of course you are right that they also installed many dictators, and once or twice even took action that looked a lot like overthrowing democratic governments (the most obvious example is Chile where they had a hand in overturning a Socialist government that was actually elected). But even looking at those countries is instructive - all (at least all the one's you mentioned and I can think of) countries where the US got the government they wanted are now democracies (Nationalist China, S Korea, the Filipines, Chile, and so on). In the places where they failed to get the dictator that they wanted, dictatorship still prevails (Communist China, N Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, etc). Which suggests that the the US really was trying to pick the lesser evils.

      Anyway, it is not hard to find democracies that have "Made in USA" stamped on them, even if there are (or were) many dictatorships with the same label.

    2. Re:Creators the Democracy? by zatz · · Score: 1

      The constitution Germany had before WWII was modeled on the US constitution. They had a democracy before the war, and they voted to make Hitler supreme dictator.

      In general, US foreign policy is far more concerned with maintaining regimes which permit US corporations to exploit the local natural resources and cheap labor. Occasionally we dress it up as "creating democracy" or "fighting communism" or "fighting terrorism", because our voters are naive enough to go for such things.

      --

      Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
    3. Re:Creators the Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, the joke is on you, most Americans DO know and understand we need natural resources and artificial stability to maintain the suburban status-quo. I don't expect any other country to back us, in fact I don't really care, reciprocation has went out the window. I want to drive my car, make my money, and live comfortably. Fuck the world, we tried and failed with it, let someone else fuck it up for awhile, and we'll point some massivly destructive weapons at them, then we can bitch at how they ruined it......

    4. Re:Creators the Democracy? by praksys · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most US foreign policy from 1945 to 1990 revolved around the defense of Western Europe, and as I noted earlier, most of the democracies in Western Europe were either created by or re-established as a result of US military action.

      So now explain to me how the whole of Western Europe is just a big scheme by the US to exploit natural resources and cheap labour. What resources? What cheap labour?

      Marxist explanations (i.e. the kind of explanation you just tried to give) don't even fit the facts very well for 19th century imperialist powers, let alone the US in the 20th century.

      Oh, and in case you forgot the pre-WWII German democracy was also created by Allied military action.

    5. Re:Creators the Democracy? by unitron · · Score: 1

      We did do some good in Europe but before you brag on the U.S.-Panama relationship too much you might want to look into how Panama came into existence in the first place. Here's a hint: The idea for the canal came first.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    6. Re:Creators the Democracy? by zatz · · Score: 1

      The defense of Western Europe? Let's see, where were the major US military actions since 1945... Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Not to mention endless meddling in South America, where we have several times replaced one brutal dictator with another who was even worse. How is any of that "defending Western Europe"? Only recently, after the Soviet Union crumbled and stopped maintaining its iron grip on the satellite states in Eastern Europe, has any intervention in Europe been necessary.

      After WWII, we were in a far better position than any other industrialized nation. The only direct attack we suffered was in Hawaii, compared to Europe, where a lot of transportation and manufacturing capacity was destroyed by bombing. Our foreign policy has largely been maintenance of our superior position. Whether that is good is another discussion; but to pretend otherwise is deliberate ignorance.

      I did not forget the origins of Germany's constitution. I think it serves to demonstrate that there is nothing magically good and holy about such "created democracies". They may be better than the alternatives, but you are too quick to assume it is best to go about "creating democracy" wherever we wish.

      --

      Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
  44. And Saddam!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should i recall that Saddam (yes, DEVIL HIMSELF!) was a US Ally when fighting Iran in the 80's?

  45. Re:First Karma burn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, you got me on the meta-humor.

    Really, I was just jealous because by the time I saw the article and thought of the Jackie Chan joke, it had already been made. I still think it could have been better, though.

  46. Name one by maroberts · · Score: 1

    W.Germany (post WW2)
    Japan (after WW2 and MacArthur military goverment)
    S. Korea ? (may be on dodgy ground)

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Name one by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Exactly. In addition to giving actual cash money to rebuild Europe, world war II marks the last time the US actually made a concerted effort to fix things after a war is over. Since then they've spent they're time killing popular communist leaders and replacing them with military dictators.

      Maybe they should revise their foreign policy back by about half a century?

  47. Re:No it was Tesla...Marconi is a Marketer by Zelph · · Score: 1

    You are absolutely right. Tesla was the inventor or radio and radar, among many other things. He also discovered AC over DC, which caused Edison quite a bit of grief. Tesla is perhaps one of the ultimate "mad scientists." He (last time I knew) held the most patents for a single individual within the U.S. patent office. Some of his discoveries we cannot explain even today, and others are veiled in secrecy by the U.S. government. Margaret Cheney's book on Tesla is a great look into the life and works of Tesla. It can be found in many libraries or even at many book outlets.

  48. WHO GIVES A SH*T WHERE HE'S FROM?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do people get themselves all bent out of shape over nationalities? Do they think it somehow makes *them* look smarter? Reflected glory, riding coattails -- what a load of shit. As others have pointed out, most inventions are, in reality, entirely collaborative efforts, anyway, with work contributed by researchers, scientists and engineers from all over the globe. When somebody jumps up and down because somebody else has neglected to attribute some credit to the country the whiner happens to hail from, I smell an inferiority complex. Is that really as good as you get...?

    1. Re:WHO GIVES A SH*T WHERE HE'S FROM?! by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Remember, humans still have a lot of evolutionary baggage. "My tribe is better than your tribe!" doesn't go away just because we're living in technologically 'enlightened' times.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    2. Re:WHO GIVES A SH*T WHERE HE'S FROM?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many will miss your point I'm sure. A reason is not necessarily an excuse.

  49. Re:Ask Slashdot: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6.) PROFIT!

  50. Radar development by Brooksindy · · Score: 1

    Try the following links:
    http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content.php?P=RADA R

    " In the autumn of 1922, NRL made the first detection of a moving ship by radio waves and, as a result, discovered the radar principle. Eight years after the initial discovery of the radar principle, NRL scientists noted that the reflections of radio waves from an airplane could also be detected."

    The first US production prototype shipboard antenna, the XAF, from the battleship NEW YORK, is preserved at the Washington Navy Yard museum.
    http://www.museums.simonides.org/usa/nava lhiscen.h tm

    http://www.de220.com/Electronics/Radar/Radar.htm

    " 1904: 30 April. The "telemobiloscope" (radar) patented and demonstrated by German engineer Christian Hülsmeyer. Telefunken refuses to buy his patents.
    1916: February. German Richard Scherl produced the 10cm wavelength "Strahlenzieler" (Raypointer). German Navy rejects it as "not important tot he war effort."
    1920s: British Dr. Robert Watson-Watt discovers the theory of radar just after WW I while trying to find a way to detect thunderstorms.
    1933: Germany develops the "seetakt" carrier wave (CW) radar that operates at 50 centimeters on 50 watts. It can detect a 500 ton ship at over 7 miles. It is used exclusively as a range finder."

    Not mentioned in any of these links is the 'iceberg detector' carried by the French liner NORMANDIE from about 1935 which was also a radar.

    There is plenty of evidence for independent development of the radar principle: The arguments come on significance of each country's work and the producibility of the sets.

    Brooks A Rowlett

  51. World War, Amerikans and Lateness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another stupid American who thinks that, just because his fucking country was late in joining the war effort, (just like the Great War), the war couldn't have been raging since September, 1939. What's more, he couldn't even get the date of that late arrival...it was nineteen-forty-ONE, you half-wit!

    I guess you Yanks are going to be really punctual for WWIII, considering you're the ones with the psychotic idiot running the country who's hell bent on finishing Daddy's dirty work from a decade ago, just so you can all drive tractor-trailer based station wagons.

    1. Re:World War, Amerikans and Lateness by unitron · · Score: 1

      Prior to December of 1941 there was a war going on in Europe and Japan was jumping ugly in Asia. When Japan attacked the U.S. and Germany foolishly declared war on the U.S. a few days later, that's when it became a World War, when the other side of the globe got dragged into it. As for being late to join the war effort (the U.S. wasn't under any treaty obligations that I know of to join into combat), you might want to read up on Lend-Lease and the strong isolationist sentiments of which FDR risked running afoul in implementing Lend-Lease.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  52. Re:Don't be silly, it has to be NINNLE!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't he the same guy that started Ninnle Linux?

  53. FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conant, the chick who wrote the book, was on CSPAN's "Booknotes" this summer talking about it. She just happens to be a descendant. Loomis was an incredible character but....

    For more on the real story of technology and this time in it's context of politics, read "A Man Called Intrepid". It's a best-seller from 20 years ago. It's a wonder we yanks came into the war at all, but the reason we came out on top afterwards was that all of the best tech minds of Europe had either fled or been relocated to our shores during the earliest days of the war. The Brits were working on their version of Manhattan, as were the Germans, in the early days of the war. The big deal between Roosevelt & Churchill was that the Brits would send their best minds to the states to accomplish two things: keep them safe from German capture, and expedite a joint US/GB atom project. Who knew that they'd stay after the hostilities?

  54. at first glance... by burns210 · · Score: 1

    I was sure that Linux got it's own park. :)

  55. Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 54 by Selfbain · · Score: 1

    Why is it I keep seeing messages proclaiming celebrities dead in these threads? Get out more.

    --
    Well, it has never been successfully tested.
  56. Me too. by V4L1S · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...at parties he would often play several games of chess simultaneously, with his back to the boards and while maintaining lively conversation with his other guests.
    So what, I've done that lots of times. It was easy. Hell, I might have even won one of them, maybe. I was really drunk those times, so I can't be all that sure. Or something.

    --
    "DRM is a mandatory buggy whip in every car." MadAhab (40080)
  57. Re:No it was Tesla...Marconi is a Marketer by Saeger · · Score: 1
    and others are veiled in secrecy by the U.S. government

    Ooo... you mean Zero Point Energy is real, and the Gubbermint is covering it up to keep the OilPigs in power?!

    Seriously though, there's no Tesla conspiracy unless you want to believe in one. Anything he invented couldn't be so advanced as to have not been independently rediscovered in the many decades since.

    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
  58. Cambridge, England and Cambridge, Massachusetts??? by JohnDenver · · Score: 1

    Isn't it funny that while RADAR was invented in Cambridge, Enlgish it was perfected in Cambridge, Massachusetts?

    Isn't it also suspicious that Loomis's secretary's name was Watson-Watts, and Watson-Watts secretary's name was Loomis?

    Coincidence, or just a freak event of the statistically unlikely?

    --
    "Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
  59. Re:No it was Tesla...Marconi is a Marketer by CharlesEGrant · · Score: 2, Funny
    If we want to get into the gory details, radio waves were predicted by the electromagnetic field theory of James Clerk Maxwell in 1864. They were first demonstrated in the laboratory in 1887 by Heinrich Hertz. Marconi began his experiments with radio in 1894 and he obtained a British patent in 1896. Tesla obtained an American patent in 1897. Marconi applied for an American patent in 1900, but it was denied because of Tesla's prior work.

    In 1901 Marconi made the first successful radio transmission across the Atlantic in 1901. In 1904 the US patent office reversed its previous decisions and granted Marconi a US patent. In 1909 Marconi received the Nobel prize for "contributions to wireless telegraphy". This apparently frosted Tesla's shorts, and he filed suit for infringement. In 1943 the US patent office finally upheld Tesla's earlier patent.

    It seems to me that it is reasonable to honor both Tesla and Marconi as inventors of radio. If you really want to get picky, it seems to me that Marconi's British patent gives him priority (which bring us back to the start of this sub-thread).
    before Marconi, 2-way radios were used for communication only, Marconi figured out how to use them for entertainment. Marconi was not an inventor, he was an entrepreneur...and the first corporate pirate...and a big bastard.
    As shown above Tesla and Marconi made their contributions almost simultaneously. Before Marconi (and Tesla), there weren't any 2-way radios. Radio as entertainment didn't arrive until 1920 (KDKA). This is 25 years after Marconi began his work on radio, and 11 years after he was awarded the Nobel prize.
  60. Riiiight... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    So when Germany invaded Poland, that somehow made it a world war?

    Or when Britain and France declared war, that made it a world war?

    Or when Italy joined in, that made it a world war?

    Or maybe when Germany invaded the European part of Russia, that made it a world war?

    Or maybe when Italy and Germany invaded nearby North Africa, when it finally reached a continent outside Europe, that still wasn't quite the 3 or 4 continents you claim necessary?

    So, exactly how does Europe equal the world but China, a much bigger area, not?

    1. Re:Riiiight... by Tardigrade · · Score: 1

      I never mentioned when the War began, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Europe (if it did, the Crusades could be seen as World Wars, even though they weren't). I'm not even interested in trying to figure out specific times. I'm just saying that a regional conflict (China isn't even that big a nation) does not a World War make. The alliances that later formed made it a World War. This is perhaps overly pedantic nit-picking, but it's a nit I'm willing to pick.

    2. Re:Riiiight... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      If you go back and read the thread, you will see someone claiming the second world war started in 1939. Now you can have your cake or eat it, not both. Either a European war by itself was a world war, ha ha, or the entry of the US and Japan into it in 1941 made it a world war retroactively, because it started in 1939 but became a world war in 1941. And if that is the argument, then the war that started in 1937 became a world war when the European phase started in 1939, or it became a world war when the US entered in 1941. But you cannot assert that the 1939 war by itself was a world war, because that involved only part of one continent.

    3. Re:Riiiight... by Tardigrade · · Score: 1

      Yes, I read that part of the thread. What I was specifically reacting to was you're calling it a World War when Japan invaded China. I stated no dates. (We may be arguing past each other, while agreeing on the fundmental point)

      It didn't become a World War *retroactively*, it became a World War the moment those entangling alliances engaged in mutual conflict/declaration of war. This would probably be in 1941 (though I'm not sure enough of the intricacies of what was going on, it may very well be that Canada's involvement was enough to make it a World War before the US became involved (adding Russia as a state in the 3rd required continent, though I think this just barely qualifies). There's Australia too, not sure about them).

      Prior to that 3rd or 4th continent and multi-nation entangling alliances* it wasn't a World War (just precursor conflicts (or wars) to a World War).

      * - Some nations span continents; I don't count this as being enough to count as an additional continent, as then you're dealing with proximity.

  61. Re:No it was Tesla...Marconi is a Marketer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So where does all this leave our friend Loomis?

  62. Re:No it was Tesla...Marconi is a Marketer by CharlesEGrant · · Score: 1

    The article that started this thread claimed was that Loomis invented RADAR and LORAN, not radio, the invention of radio came up as a digression.

    From the quick checking I did, it looks like Loomis did invent LORAN, and he made major contributions to the managment of the MIT Radiation laboratory, but he certainly didn't invent RADAR. The best claim to the invention of RADAR seems to be Robert Alexander Watson-Watt. He was granted a British patent for locating aircraft using radio reflection in 1935.

  63. Some references please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because I've never heard the "Russian's" (ps - plural is not the same as possesive, you silly "American's") claiming to invent anything you describe. Now, as far as space exploration and advanced avionics, that's a whole different story.

    1. Re:Some references please? by fenix+down · · Score: 1
  64. Re:Ask Slashdot: by unitron · · Score: 1
    ...a semi-rare Greedo doll...

    It's not a doll, it's a toy. Don't you keep up with tax court cases*?

    *and X-Men stuff in general

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  65. Re:Cambridge, England and Cambridge, Massachusetts by unitron · · Score: 1

    Kennedy's secretary Lincoln and Lincoln's secretary Kennedy both agree that you're reading way too much into it.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.