Mmm. Nitrogen fixation and my high-waisted pants/suspender fixation, all in one.
But they are gone to early death, who late in school
Distinguished the belt feed lever from the belt holding pawl.
You have a Hacker News account, nosflow?
I am quite suspicious of any argument in fashion that starts or ends with claims about fabric shortages. Because, after all, they can be (and frequently are) inverted with the observation that in the end, fashion is about scarcity.
(And really, isn't this just evidence fashion doesn't change as quickly these days?)
The change in trousers was fostered by two developments. One was the WWI. Mass production of uniforms for nationally conscripted armies in the time of war shortages forced national governments to trim as much material as possible. The trousers were made with such a low cut that suspenders became loose, and they needed to tie these funny trousers with a wide belt that was worn over the coat.
This is not only false but illogical.
1. WW1 and WW2 army uniforms included trousers held up by braces, not by belts (as formal army uniforms do even today). The belt goes over the tunic. A belt worn over the tunic is not a very good way of holding up trousers.
2. Soldiers in combat wore webbing belts to carry ammunition pouches, water bottles and so on. If you are already wearing a webbing belt, wearing another belt to hold your trousers up is very uncomfortable. (Personal experience) So you either wear braces, or you rely on having your trousers fitting well - which wouldn't happen because uniforms were mass-produced.
Summary: the mass armies of WW1 wore braces.
Tail-less shirts and single-breasted suits, though, are the result of cloth rationing.
I like pants with the little adjuster things on the sides.
7. Can you still get those? I haven't seen them for foty years.
I know that World War I was responsible for the transition from pocketwatches to wristwatches for men, but I'm slightly dubious about the belts.
I wuz told that King Edward VII was responsible for the front to back crease in trousers. Apparently they used to be ironed that way to store, but the crease was ironed out when you wanted to wear them. On some occasion there was a wardrobe malfunction at the last minute before some public occasion, and they had to send him out with the crease still in his spare pants. So everybody said, "Ooh look! the King/Prince of Wales has started a new fashion."
re: 10
I think ajay has comprehensively pwnd the claim.
I've heard the story in 11 before, but the King was naked.
I had a very stylish set of vintage army shorts when I was a teen. They had an integral belt thingy to adjust the fit, and it worked perfectly. I tried to find an image of something similar but can't. They had a buckle and an extended strip of cloth with reinforced holes right where you'd need it in order to cinch the waist in.
I hope waistcoats do not become de rigeur. I need to be able to wear as little as possible in order to avoid sweating like a pig. An extra layer of clothing would not be helpful.
They had an integral belt thingy to adjust the fit, and it worked perfectly. I tried to find an image of something similar but can't.
Try baby/toddler clothes or maternity clothes.
8: I've had a few suits made with side adjusters and found a couple more vintage suits with them. They seem to be coming back a little.
12 - Now I'm looking at pictures of oldy-timey high waisted suits, though, so this was a valuable timewaster despite ajay's brutal pwnage.
7. Can you still get those? I haven't seen them for foty years.
Yes. You don't even, like Flip, need to have them made that way. I have two pairs with them.
And another with drawstrings.
Oddly, all these pants also have belt loops.
Until very recently, Army combat trousers had drawstrings and belt loops. They were belt-optional; if you were wearing webbing belt, you held them up with the drawstrings. If not, you wore a belt - either a plain green one or a stable belt in one of a myriad of jolly colours. (Latest ones: no drawstrings. Trust to luck.)
Windproof combat trousers (if you're a bit special) have the adjustable fit thing described by togolosh in 14. The buckles are round the side, almost on the left and right hip, and there are two long strips of fabric with holes that buckle into them.
Windproof combat trousers
It's all the beans on toast.
You don't even, like Flip, need to have them made that way.
I need many things.
It's all the beans on toast.
Actually UK rations (compo) are surprisingly bean-heavy. It is almost impossible not to have beans at least once a day and utterly impossible to avoid some sort of stodge with custard in the evening. Even the poor old Sikhs and Muslims can't escape the bean.
The British Army does not cater for Pythagoreans.
http://www.meanandgreen.com/articles/rationmenu.jpg
As far as I can see from that lot the only way to avoid beans is to skip breakfast entirely. Probably not a good idea on active service.
It's probably not a good idea to avoid beans entirely. They're good for you.
23.last: Does the British Army not serve lunch or dinner? I only see two meals and a snack (which some days appears to be really light), not three.
26: each pack also includes all the stuff in the box at bottom right. So you've got your biscuits, fruit grains, chocolate, oatmeal and so on, whatever menu you're on.
And I'm sure boiled sweets are great, whatever they are, but I still don't understand what the main meal is (i.e. lunch or dinner) and why you only get two meals.
The main meal is what you have in the evening. Your lunch is tuna, biscuits, chocolate etc. The idea is, I suppose, that you wake up in the morning, cook your breakfast, then set off marching (or driving). It's cold food and snacks only during the day because you eat them as you go, so you might not have time to brew up. Then you get to your next position, dig in, and cook your evening meal.
Wiki informs me that boiled sweets are AKA hard candy.
Thanks. And from a marketing standpoint, "boiled sweets" does sound better.
Brew up = make hot food, or, more often, tea.
23: The chocolate pudding is in chocolate sauce and the toffee pudding is in toffee sauce, but the treacle pudding is not in treacle sauce.
In reality all three are more similar to a small slab of degraded cavity wall insulation immersed in antifreeze.
"Oi! Are you 'avin' a go? Where's the treacle sauce?"
"Treacle pudding doesn't come with treacle sauce. You can 'ave your choice of chocolate sauce, toffee sauce or antifreeze."
Now I'm wondering what a degraded cavity is, and why one would want to insulate it.
"Can I just have a Kit-Kat please?"
I don't have a slow cooker but I do have an oven set to 200 F and I know how to lute. Will my beans be horribly over- or under-cooked when I get home?
You can have a Yorkie bar. They have "NOT FOR CIVILIANS" on them in big letters.
There's no such thing as cavities, degraded or otherwise. There are such things as cavity walls, and they can be degraded.
Among themselves, dentists call cavities "caries." I've always been afraid to ask why.
Actually it is the insulation that is degraded. I meant "degraded (cavity wall insulation)" not "(degraded cavity wall) insulation" or indeed "(degraded cavity) wall insulation".
"Treacle pudding doesn't come with treacle sauce. You can 'ave your choice of chocolate sauce, toffee sauce or antifreeze."
I was suddenly reminded of a delightfully subversive television advertisement for a South African fast food chain that starred Evita Bezuidenhout. (It's probably on youtube, but I can't look it up at the moment.) The spot introduces the restaurant's new line of desserts (one of which was treacle pudding, IIRC). It shows the clerk at the counter offering Evita two dessert choices, option A and option C. She impatiently demands to know what option B is: "There has to be another choice. You can't just have 'A' and 'C'!"
Here, knecht! Though it's fried chicken meals, not dessert.
41: There's no such thing as cavities
Are we just going to let this bit of attempted philosophical little bitchery stand? (I assume that is what it is.)
47: They must have recycled the joke - though I'm not sure which version is prior art.
47: Huh, the only resemblance that bears to the Nando's food I've seen is that chicken is involved somehow.
