From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 31/01/2026 6:45 am, john larkin wrote:   
   > On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 16:07:37 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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   
   â€œfuture 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.   
   >   
   > More lame insults. Don't you bore yourself?   
      
   It's a valid point - the insult is incidental.   
      
   > My time in Moscow was interesting. They treated "American Capitalists"   
   > like gods and treated common Russians like trash. Entirely backwards,   
   > I thought.   
      
   American capitalists were hard to get. There were lots of Russians   
   around. Scarce goods are always over-valued.   
      
   > We were transported in a warm bus onto a warm Aeroflot plane and given   
   > hot tea, as a crowd of Russians waited outside to board, in the cold   
   > rain.   
   >   
   > We could buy stuff in shops in Moscow that Russian civilians were not   
   > allowed to enter.   
   >   
   > The Russian women, not just the mobs of hookers, were all over us.   
   > They wanted to marry Americans, and my single male co-workers usually   
   > came home with a Russian wife. I understand that it usually worked out   
   > well.   
      
   Your single male co-workers had presumably had enough sense and   
   self-discipline to get an education and job, and enough diplomatic   
   skills to deal with a Donald Trump-lite boss. Marriages between people   
   who know what they are getting into do tend to work. "Marry in haste,   
   repent at leisure" is more of a problem with younger people.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman. Sydney   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)