From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 30/01/2026 5:43 am, john larkin wrote:   
   > On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 12:24:59 +0100, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:   
   >   
   >> In article <69795271$0$21961$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>,   
   >> bitrex   wrote:   
   >>> On 1/27/2026 6:03 PM, john larkin wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> The fundamental service johns tend to be paying for is for her to go   
   >>>>> away afterwards, not to fall in love with them..   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Anyway I can't imagine professing my love for my GF after working all   
   >>>>> day in the weapons biz, like: "What'd you do today, honey?" "Oh you   
   >>>>> know, worked on some software for this thing that'll probably blow some   
   >>>>> poor bugger's limbs or head off, maybe make him a paraplegic or his wife   
   >>>>> a widow and kids orphans. Yeah I was really laying down some solid   
   >>>>> murderbot code at Murder Inc. today! Anyway, glad to be home, love ya   
   >>>>> babe. What's for dinner?"   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Maybe they just say "it's classified" and leave it at that. I can see   
   why.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If this post was from anyone else, I'd assume they were just having a   
   >>>> bad day.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> John Larkin   
   >>>> Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center   
   >>>> Lunatic Fringe Electronics   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I'm just saying it's disappointing when the party of "small government"   
   >>> gets all excited over militaria. The "problems" involved aren't   
   >>> particularly interesting and the "solutions" are mostly buggy junk, anyway.   
   >>>   
   >>> "Our A.I.-powered platform processes battlefield data in real time,   
   >>> adapting to changing conditions without human intervention,â€? the   
   >>> pamphlet says. “Neutralize more targets at a fraction of legacy   
   system   
   >>> costs. Deploy at scale to achieve overwhelming force multiplication   
   >>> against sophisticated threats.â€? The pamphlet claimed a “future   
   monthly   
   >>> productionâ€? of more than 6,000 units.   
   >>>   
   >>> As usual the NYT pretty much just repeats their military-industrial   
   >>> master's breathless optimism about the new junk verbatim. I could just   
   >>> read the sales brochure   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The military industry in China makes weapons.   
   >> The military industry in USA makes money.   
   >   
   > The CCP biggies make the money.   
      
   Nowhere near as much as their American equivalents.   
      
   > There was just a giant purge about   
   > that. Probably has to do with tofu-dreg missiles or something.   
      
   More likely political differences of opinion.   
      
   > The russians have the same issue: all the good parts have been stolen.   
      
   Not all of them. The Ukraine keeps on getting hit by IRBM's.   
      
   > When I was working in the USSR, all sorts of stuff was stolen from our   
   > work site. "Why not, it doesn't belong to anybody."   
      
   The bosses were silly enough to have hired you. More sensible employers   
   might have done better.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)