rant: Sears Sucks

[Phil Hobbs]

On 08/02/2015 09:58 PM, rickman wrote:

On 8/2/2015 8:33 PM, John Larkin wrote:

It is amazing how ubiquitous electronics has become. There is
practically no science that doesn't involve electronics. Plenty of
opportunities.

Yep, as long as you can find customers with deep enough pockets to fund
the development of products that aren't cookie cutter in nature. And...
as long as you don't try to use technology you aren't very good at using.

Nah, that's the key. You become a wizard by getting chucked in the deep
end N times in a row. If you only do what you're good at at the moment,
you'll get obsolete.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 10:49:55 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 08/01/2015 07:35 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:11:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 8/1/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

Except if you possess a conscience and like to sleep at night.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that
the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble
intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal
responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes
that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality
doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found
that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest
simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only
useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and
occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only
question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to
keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

Violate the laws, sure. We'd need a team of sixty lawyers to even keep
track of what all the laws are. Did I actually pull a resistor from
stock, and use it in a breadboard, and not report the sales tax due?
So shoot me.

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.


One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

People with skinny wives don't have that particular moral dilemma.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 04:38:21 -0700 (PDT), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhobbs@gmail.com> wrote:

But there isn't much leisure to try things five or six times. Things
have to work, preferably first try. That part can be exciting, too,
promising to do something difficult and then seeing if it will work.

As somebody said, 'the best projects are the ones where you get a knot in your stomach as soon as the contract gets signed.'

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Exactly. Every new project should be a calculated risk, pushing the
specs and pushing yourself just the right amount into the danger zone.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 08/03/2015 11:50 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 10:49:55 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 08/01/2015 07:35 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:11:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 8/1/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

Except if you possess a conscience and like to sleep at night.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that
the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble
intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal
responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes
that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality
doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found
that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest
simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only
useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and
occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only
question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to
keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

Violate the laws, sure. We'd need a team of sixty lawyers to even keep
track of what all the laws are. Did I actually pull a resistor from
stock, and use it in a breadboard, and not report the sales tax due?
So shoot me.

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.


One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

People with skinny wives don't have that particular moral dilemma.


Nobody's wife _considers_ herself skinny.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Don Y]

On 8/3/2015 8:53 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 04:38:21 -0700 (PDT), Phil Hobbs <pcdhobbs@gmail.com
wrote:

But there isn't much leisure to try things five or six times. Things
have to work, preferably first try. That part can be exciting, too,
promising to do something difficult and then seeing if it will work.

As somebody said, 'the best projects are the ones where you get a knot in
your stomach as soon as the contract gets signed.'

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Exactly. Every new project should be a calculated risk, pushing the specs
and pushing yourself just the right amount into the danger zone.

If you're "reasonably" confident that you'll hit it on the first
(or even third) try, you're not pushing yourself hard enough! (IMO)
A true challenge is one where there is a good chance that you *will*
fail -- and need to be extra diligent to ensure that doesn't happen!

E.g., in my current project, I have several *components* (i.e.,
"small pieces", not even "major subassemblies") that I can't even
*specify* completely!

For example, a speech synthesizer (How do you know you've implemented it
"well enough"? If it speaks everything "correctly"? If it speaks
everything in a manner that *someone* would consider normal? If it
speaks things in a *recognizable* manner? etc.) and a gesture
recognizer (how many gestures can it "get wrong" before it is
deemed unacceptable? how long can it take to "recognize" a given
gesture?).

If you can't formally define the level of performance to
be expected, how can you know that you've *met* that level of
performance??

Sort of like "What should a power supply *feel* like? (rough, smooth,
etc.)"

 

[krw]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 10:49:55 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 08/01/2015 07:35 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:11:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 8/1/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

Except if you possess a conscience and like to sleep at night.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that
the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble
intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal
responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes
that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality
doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found
that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest
simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only
useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and
occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only
question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to
keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

Violate the laws, sure. We'd need a team of sixty lawyers to even keep
track of what all the laws are. Did I actually pull a resistor from
stock, and use it in a breadboard, and not report the sales tax due?
So shoot me.

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.


One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

The answer to that question is a simple, "Do you want to go out to
dinner?" or if that's too common, "How about a vacation in the South
of France?".

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 12:16:47 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 08/03/2015 11:50 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 10:49:55 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 08/01/2015 07:35 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:11:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 8/1/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

Except if you possess a conscience and like to sleep at night.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that
the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble
intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal
responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes
that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality
doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found
that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest
simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only
useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and
occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only
question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to
keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

Violate the laws, sure. We'd need a team of sixty lawyers to even keep
track of what all the laws are. Did I actually pull a resistor from
stock, and use it in a breadboard, and not report the sales tax due?
So shoot me.

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.


One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

People with skinny wives don't have that particular moral dilemma.


Nobody's wife _considers_ herself skinny.

Certainly, but at least I don't have to commit a mortal sin when I
answer the question.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[krw]

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 22:08:18 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
<mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote:

In article <c0csrat1le117m4uk6aa7k4rutfakjteut@4ax.com>,
krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:20:23 -0700, Kevin McMurtrie
mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> wrote:

The job of Sears is to rebrand other products and throw a scam on top.
They get sued so much that I don't see how they're still allowed to
operate.

- The Sears Card exists only to generate revenue from broad spectrum of
late fee fraud.

While Sears has, at least at one time, made more money from its
financial business than it has from retail, "late fee fraud" is
certainly not their reason for existence. That's just absurd.

Search for "Sears Card fraud." There's a very sophisticated scheme
behind it that has generated many state lawsuits against Sears for fraud.

Point not answered.


- They violate all major credit card terms by billing for products
before they are available to ship. (A policy that helps with the Sears
Card fraud.)

Citation needed.

Just ask Sears. They billed me for a clothes washer and drier as soon
as I placed the order, even though it was not yet available to ship.
Sears customer service claimed that it was their procedure. This
violates the terms of all major credit cards, including the one used.

Did you turn them in to the CC company?

- They've been caught selling foreign tool replicas as "Made in USA."

- They send fake technicians to your home to declare that your appliance
warranty has been voided.

Citation needed.

Me. I had a self-install RO filter that would not turn off. I followed
diagnostics in the manual and found a defective diaphragm. I boxed it
up for return to the store. Two Sears stores refused to honor their
warranty in-store and said a tech must inspect it as a house call. I
set the box on a table. The "tech" arrived hours late, saw that it was
boxed up, and phoned in that I had voided the warranty by uninstalling
it. While standing right in front of me and the box, he said that he
inspected the product and it was completely destroyed.

I recorded it with a laptop but can't find it at the moment.

With your hatred of Sears, why on *Earth* do you do business with
them. I have no love for them but don't think they're criminal, and I
wouldn't do business with them.

I have no love for Sears anymore and rarely walk in their stores but
the above is libelous drivel.

You haven't moved the needle.

 

[rickman]

On 8/3/2015 10:49 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 08/01/2015 07:35 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:11:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 8/1/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

Except if you possess a conscience and like to sleep at night.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that
the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble
intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal
responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes
that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality
doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found
that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest
simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only
useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and
occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only
question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to
keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

Violate the laws, sure. We'd need a team of sixty lawyers to even keep
track of what all the laws are. Did I actually pull a resistor from
stock, and use it in a breadboard, and not report the sales tax due?
So shoot me.

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.


One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

"At least it takes the focus off your thighs."

--

Rick

 

[Don Y]

On 8/3/2015 9:55 AM, John Larkin wrote:

[attrs elided]

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.

One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

People with skinny wives don't have that particular moral dilemma.

Nobody's wife _considers_ herself skinny.

Certainly, but at least I don't have to commit a mortal sin when I
answer the question.

Why would anyone want you to *lie* to her? Presumably this is someone
you care *something* about!
"No, Honey, you look great!"
Meanwhile, everyone around her is thinking: "Wow, she sure looks FAT!"
(without even the courtesy of the "dress" qualifier!)

Instead, explain what you think about the "outfit" is causing the problem
(if, indeed, there is a problem). I suspect she'd rather a *genuine*
opinion than a pleasant delusion!

I once asked a friend who's wife was into fashion (designer, etc.)
why women wear horizontal stripes as vertical stripes *tend* to be
more slimming: "Horizontal stripes accentuate the bustline"!

Sheesh! It must be tough to be a woman! Can't win no matter how
you try!! :-/

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 08/03/2015 01:18 PM, Don Y wrote:

On 8/3/2015 9:55 AM, John Larkin wrote:

[attrs elided]

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.

One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

People with skinny wives don't have that particular moral dilemma.

Nobody's wife _considers_ herself skinny.

Certainly, but at least I don't have to commit a mortal sin when I
answer the question.

Why would anyone want you to *lie* to her?Presumably this is someone
you care *something* about!

An experienced husband knows that despite appearances this is a request
for reassurance far more than for information. If he loves her, he can
provide that reassurance without actual mendacity. You never answer
"yes", but if the dress is really unflattering you can say "How about
the red one?"

"No, Honey, you look great!"
Meanwhile, everyone around her is thinking: "Wow, she sure looks FAT!"
(without even the courtesy of the "dress" qualifier!)

Instead, explain what you think about the "outfit" is causing the problem
(if, indeed, there is a problem). I suspect she'd rather a *genuine*
opinion than a pleasant delusion!

Again, she can see herself in the mirror perfectly well. It's the
mental adjustment that the husband can help with.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

Den mandag den 3. august 2015 kl. 22.34.30 UTC+2 skrev John Fields:

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 10:18:18 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 8/3/2015 9:55 AM, John Larkin wrote:

[attrs elided]

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.

One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

People with skinny wives don't have that particular moral dilemma.

Nobody's wife _considers_ herself skinny.

Certainly, but at least I don't have to commit a mortal sin when I
answer the question.

Why would anyone want you to *lie* to her? Presumably this is someone
you care *something* about!
"No, Honey, you look great!"
Meanwhile, everyone around her is thinking: "Wow, she sure looks FAT!"
(without even the courtesy of the "dress" qualifier!)

Instead, explain what you think about the "outfit" is causing the problem
(if, indeed, there is a problem). I suspect she'd rather a *genuine*
opinion than a pleasant delusion!

I once asked a friend who's wife was into fashion (designer, etc.)
why women wear horizontal stripes as vertical stripes *tend* to be
more slimming: "Horizontal stripes accentuate the bustline"!

Sheesh! It must be tough to be a woman! Can't win no matter how
you try!! :-/

---
What Larkin's talking about is that he doesn't have to commit a sin by
lying to his wife since, as he's fond of repeating, she's boyishly
slim, which is to his liking.

I'm sure it'll soon be illegal. A fit athlete on the cover of a magazine is now fat shaming, a whale one cake away from a diabetes and an heart attack in "empowering" "body positive"


-Lasse

 

[Don Y]

On 8/3/2015 10:40 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 08/03/2015 01:18 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/3/2015 9:55 AM, John Larkin wrote:

[attrs elided]

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.

One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

People with skinny wives don't have that particular moral dilemma.

Nobody's wife _considers_ herself skinny.

Certainly, but at least I don't have to commit a mortal sin when I
answer the question.

Why would anyone want you to *lie* to her?Presumably this is someone
you care *something* about!

An experienced husband knows that despite appearances this is a request for
reassurance far more than for information. If he loves her, he can provide
that reassurance without actual mendacity. You never answer "yes", but if the
dress is really unflattering you can say "How about the red one?"

Exactly. I can't *count* the number of times that (and similar,
"confidence challenged") questions were posed.

A *crass* answer is only hurtful. A dishonest answer is equally so:
"if I can't trust *you* to give me an honest answer, who *can* I trust?"

A spouse (either gender) shouldn't go "fishing" for flattery from their
partner -- and should feel confident that their partner will *volunteer*
information without having to be prodded/coerced into giving it (let
alone being dishonest!)

"No, Honey, you look great!"
Meanwhile, everyone around her is thinking: "Wow, she sure looks FAT!"
(without even the courtesy of the "dress" qualifier!)

Instead, explain what you think about the "outfit" is causing the problem
(if, indeed, there is a problem). I suspect she'd rather a *genuine*
opinion than a pleasant delusion!

Again, she can see herself in the mirror perfectly well. It's the mental
adjustment that the husband can help with.

People *don't* see themselves "perfectly well". That's the problem!
Consider the number of MORBIDLY OBESE people in the world... do they
all have BROKEN MIRRORS??

Platitudes just tell your spouse that you're humoring him/her. Answer
truthfully (though gently) and explain *what* it is that you see
exacerbates/cause the "appearance problem".

This (IME) is also a win because it shows that you are *engaged* in
the problem and not just trying to rattle off a simple solution
(of which men are so commonly accused!).

SWMBO has no problem letting me know when my attire is "inappropriate"
for a function we'll be attending (left to my druthers, I'd wear jeans
and T-shirts everywhere! None of the folks who *know* me would be
offended or surprised). While I might grumble at the fact that I have
to *change* clothes, I am happy that she is watching out for this *for*
me -- so I don't have to concern myself with such trifflings.

OTOH, I don't let her "dress me": "No, I don't WANT to wear those
shoes, that tie, a sportscoat, etc." And, "I shaved last night, why
do I need to shave again this morning??"

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 13:04:31 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/3/2015 10:49 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 08/01/2015 07:35 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:11:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 8/1/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

Except if you possess a conscience and like to sleep at night.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that
the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble
intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal
responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes
that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality
doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found
that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest
simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only
useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and
occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only
question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to
keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

Violate the laws, sure. We'd need a team of sixty lawyers to even keep
track of what all the laws are. Did I actually pull a resistor from
stock, and use it in a breadboard, and not report the sales tax due?
So shoot me.

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.


One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

"At least it takes the focus off your thighs."

---
At last, some refreshing humor in this wasteland of "My dog's skinnier
than your dog!"

Thanks for the laugh,

John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 10:18:18 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 8/3/2015 9:55 AM, John Larkin wrote:

[attrs elided]

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.

One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

People with skinny wives don't have that particular moral dilemma.

Nobody's wife _considers_ herself skinny.

Certainly, but at least I don't have to commit a mortal sin when I
answer the question.

Why would anyone want you to *lie* to her? Presumably this is someone
you care *something* about!
"No, Honey, you look great!"
Meanwhile, everyone around her is thinking: "Wow, she sure looks FAT!"
(without even the courtesy of the "dress" qualifier!)

Instead, explain what you think about the "outfit" is causing the problem
(if, indeed, there is a problem). I suspect she'd rather a *genuine*
opinion than a pleasant delusion!

I once asked a friend who's wife was into fashion (designer, etc.)
why women wear horizontal stripes as vertical stripes *tend* to be
more slimming: "Horizontal stripes accentuate the bustline"!

Sheesh! It must be tough to be a woman! Can't win no matter how
you try!! :-/

---
What Larkin's talking about is that he doesn't have to commit a sin by
lying to his wife since, as he's fond of repeating, she's boyishly
slim, which is to his liking.

 

[rickman]

On 8/3/2015 5:55 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

I'm sure it'll soon be illegal. A fit athlete on the cover of a magazine is now fat shaming, a whale one cake away from a diabetes and an heart attack in "empowering" "body positive"

You live in a very strange world of your own choosing.

--

Rick

 

[Don Y]

On 8/3/2015 1:34 PM, John Fields wrote:

Sheesh! It must be tough to be a woman! Can't win no matter how
you try!! :-/

---
What Larkin's talking about is that he doesn't have to commit a sin by
lying to his wife since, as he's fond of repeating, she's boyishly
slim, which is to his liking.

Dunno. SWMBO is slim; I don't "brag" about it...

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 15:27:33 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 13:04:31 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/3/2015 10:49 AM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 08/01/2015 07:35 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:11:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 8/1/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

Except if you possess a conscience and like to sleep at night.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that
the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble
intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal
responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes
that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality
doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found
that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest
simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only
useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and
occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only
question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to
keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

Violate the laws, sure. We'd need a team of sixty lawyers to even keep
track of what all the laws are. Did I actually pull a resistor from
stock, and use it in a breadboard, and not report the sales tax due?
So shoot me.

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.


One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

"At least it takes the focus off your thighs."

---
At last, some refreshing humor in this wasteland of "My dog's skinnier
than your dog!"

Thanks for the laugh,

John Fields

You're two tents!

(actually, I've seen a pic of you which you posted years ago, and I
know you're a fairly skinny guy)

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 14:55:27 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> Gave us:

> A fit athlete on the cover of a magazine is now fat shaming,

Nawww.. It a Gender switch Jenner man! See dem boobs?

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 10:50:00 AM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 08/01/2015 07:35 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:11:05 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 18:13:39 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 8/1/2015 5:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 10:29:36 -0700, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

We design stuff. We build it. People usually buy it. We have fun. If
you can think of a better way to make a living, go for it.

Sure... government service. They write laws. They create problems
that generate more laws. People usually swallow the party line. They
lie, cheat, steal, and tax. As long as the GUM (great unwashed
masses) continue paying their "contribution", they grow and remain.
Every year billions of dollars are lost or not accountable. When
someone occasionally gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar,
nothing happens. I couldn't contrive a better system for making a
living.

Except if you possess a conscience and like to sleep at night.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs

I need an end-of-vacation rant...

Most of my youthful optimism is still intact. I like to think that
the government and business estates are run on the basis of noble
intentions, public benefit, logic, rational thinking, fiscal
responsibilities, philanthropy, and all the other positive attributes
that make up a good public relations image. Unfortunately, my reality
doesn't seem to match my illusions. In small business, I've found
that it is almost impossible to remain solvent and honest
simultaneously. I'm often forced into situations where the only
useful action is to break the rules, violate the laws, and
occasionally cheat someone. In my limited experience, the only
question is the degree one lies, cheats, and steals. I do my best to
keep these to a minimum, but it's certainly not zero.

Violate the laws, sure. We'd need a team of sixty lawyers to even keep
track of what all the laws are. Did I actually pull a resistor from
stock, and use it in a breadboard, and not report the sales tax due?
So shoot me.

But lie to and cheat real people? That is rarely or never necessary,
or even a good idea. You don't need to do that.


One difficult question that we've probably all been asked:

"Do you think this dress makes me look fat?"

Hah, When (if) my wife asks me how she looks, she can expect an honest answer.
(I'm mostly indifferent about clothes... She's more likely to ask our
"fashionable" daughter.)
However if I think she looks particularly sexy in some outfit,
I'll be sure to tell her. My reward is then that she will
wear it again.

George H.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net