Rereading TFA I see that keystrokes were explicitly mentioned which I hadn't caught the first read. I concur that they are indeed illegal in the E.U. but the use of social media & web browsing patterns depends on just how it is implemented.
In the E.U. Companies can and do require that their employees sign usage charters in order to access company networks. I know because I've deployed firewalls and network filtering equipment to quite a few of them and implemented the filtering policies.
Don't want to believe me? Try working for Siemens, Airbus, Renault, Vodaphone, Daimler, Agip, Total, Areva, etc. Don't want to sign the charter? Fine, don't, but your access to corporate networks is denied.
NOT Illegal. Companies just need to get signed authorisation that there is a company policy for this kind of stuff and make sure that all employees sign it. Don't want to sign it? Access to the company networks is refused. Need network access to do your job? Sign the damn paper.
There are a few off-limits categories though: Banking & Health among them that must be whitelisted to avoid being swept into the monitoring.
I have a work environment and a private environment (using VMWare).
My work traffic goes out over the company Internet.
Everything else (including some work stuff) goes out over my 4G phone (I have "unlimited" downloads and use 20-50GB/month).
Many moons ago I was complaining to our internal support people that the web & protocol filtering they had put into place was preventing me from working normally (Uploading debug logs and device diags to manufacturer support ssh servers is part of my job). I got a standard corporate response: We'll look into it.
Given that I'm fortunate enough to live somewhere where we have true competition between 4G Internet service providers and it this costs me $20/month, I set this up.
And this is just another of the lies your mommy told you to make you feel better: When you open your mouth and prove that you are a fool nobody cares what you say
That’d be better than the present “whiny researchers want the USG to spend > $100 million to reconstitute and launch a canceled satellite to fill a temporary gap in coverage because they refuse anything less than that hugely expensive satellite”
Yeah his post was 100% vapid snark but who knows, he may be able to rub two neurons together and have something intelligent to say. Thank you for replying intelligently.
Yes, I recognize that budget & time are both issues and they are not in a favored research sector by those holding the purse strings at present. However, the large spare satellite no longer exists because it was decided that the $100 Million+ it would have needed to be launched were never going to be funded. The specific instrument they claim to want in orbit still exists. Why aren't they attempting to get just that up if it is so important?
Or is it that "Evil Republicans cut my project" is more important than the instrument?
I just don't understand why these scientists are apparently saying "we _must_ have the same massive satellites and _cannot_ find any way of using the existing sensor on a cheaper smaller sat so that we can have it in orbit before 2022".
Are there possible reasons? Certainly. Sensor size and power requirements, minimal size to a functional maneuvering compatible satellite bus, our refusal to consider anything less than the original large satellite has painted us into a corner, etc.
But do we get tany of his on/., a supposedly technical site? No. we get "Evil Republicans DESTROYED a critical satellite" as if Timothee was back to posting click-bait on sunday mornings.
The era in which satellites cost hundreds of millions of dollars and thus satellites needed to be big, bulky and expensive is drawing to a close, but you're just an internet commentator who thinks that building a soda rocket makes you better qualified to answer than someone who read articles by sat builders and owners of constellations of satellites like SES.
But since you're such a _knowledgeable_ person why don't you explain _why_ these scientists are unable to come up with a minimally capable satellite using the available sensor that doesn't weigh a ton and need a $100 million dollar launch in less than 5 years? I mean, surely these scientists wont take longer to build a satellite than Space-X is going to need to develop and launch BFR? Or is your internet commenting limited to snark?
Huge satellites that cost dozens of millions to build and hundreds of millions to launch are part of the problem.
The senators from states that used to support the Shuttle and are now pissing away billions uselessly for SLS are also part of the problem.
The rigidity of these scientists who don't seem able to devise a minimal cost solution in less than 6 years and instead seem to me to be insisting on yet another clone of their existing satellites are also part of the problem.
Oh look, the lazy self entitled ignoramus is back.
Still think everyone on the Internet is at your service? Yup . Still to lazy to do any research by your own? Looks like it, as your ignorance hasn't changed.
Now run back and pester your mommy for an education, you ignorant git.
quibble They are presently in the Asteroid Belt but until their orbits are determined, it is not possible to state with confidence that they do not pose a threat to Earth. It is vanishingly unlikely that they _do_ pose a danger to earth but still... /quibble
Right, because with your level of ignorance there is no difference in mission between helicopters and F35s. They go up, they go down, same thing for you.
My flaming of the ignorant tells/. readers one thing about me: I do not suffer fools gladly. Now run off to your mommy so that she can tell you that your comments, no matter how inane, are just as valid as those of someone who knows what they are talking about. Because your mommy tells you that the important thing is that you feel good about yourself, she says nobody cares if you're an ignorant twit.
It is indicative of your level of lazy self-entitled cluelessness that you write "you still haven't really answered the original question" replying to a post in which I wrote:
That the Marines, the Royal Navy, Spain and Italy all have warships that cannot host "conventional" planes like the F35A or even catapult versions like the F35C but _can_ host STOVL planes like the F35B is blindingly evident to anyone that can use even simple google searches like "F35 STOVL" or "F35 variants".
I don't rage at every question. I flame idiots so visibly ignorant that they cannot understand the _answer_ to questions that they ask.
I've always wondered what makes some people think that they can expose their ignorance on the Internet without everyone else realizing that they are fools..
That the Marines, the Royal Navy, Spain and Italy all have warships that cannot host "conventional" planes like the F35A or even catapult versions like the F35C but _can_ host STOVL planes like the F35B is blindingly evident to anyone that can use even simple google searches like "F35 STOVL" or "F35 variants".
So junior, what exactly is it that prevented you from doing _any_ research on your own? - Your lack of education? Oh, you're clearly ignorant on the subject or you wouldn't have written "What for? I don't know either way". - Your overweening sense of entitlement that makes you think that _everyone_ who reads/. is at your service? Yes, clearly, you think that _your_ ignorance is something _everyone_else_ should be working to correct. - Your lazyness. Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! He's too _lazy_ to spend 30 seconds googling and a minute or two reading.
Learn to correct your ignorance by yourself and stop wasting everyone else's time. It would have taken you 5 min to learn for yourself why Opportunist's "Nobody needs the F35 as a military plane" was both false and hyperbole. One can argue that the F35B is too expensive but not that it isn't needed.
Yeah, I'm a cranky old fart, but _you_ asked _me_.
You stated "Nobody needs the F35 as a military plane" which is quite clearly wrong as I have repeatedly pointed out. Were your master Putin's wishes in cancelling the F35 to bear fruit all 7 MEUs as well as the Royal fleet arms and Spanish naval forces would become toothless. But that and not any "savings" are what you really want, right Ivan?, (Vladimir? Pyotr?)
Go ahead and attempt to cover by moving the goalposts again. Seeing you squirm is amusing.
Your claimed "economic dependency prevents war" has been shown to be insufficient in almost every important instance: WWI, WWII, etc.
Putin does not "depend" upon anyone's money. As for strife between Russia and the West, you appear ignorant of the sanctions imposed on Russia after their repeated annexations and continuing bald faced lies, patriotic little green men = overt russian support. War by proxy is still war.
None are so blind as those that refuse to see applies to your continued ignorance of Putin's actions and it's consequences.
The remark on Putin was to reinforce that your example is clearly obsolete while Putin holds power. Surely even _you_ can admit that? Or are you _that_ delusional?
For once my sig is relevant. Go ask the Ukrainians and Georgians if they are content to have Putin forcibly annex those parts of their territory that he desires.
Ask the people in Taiwan if they will willingly live under Peking's rule.
Ask South Korea and Japan if they are happy with North Korea's saber rattling.
Ash Cubans if they are willing to fall under U.S rule for that matter (though you may get a different answer if you ask in the city with the largest Cuban population and the second largest - Miami & Havana respectively)
The only people that continue to push for universal peace by calling for _us_ to lay down all our means of defending ourselves from predators are the witting or unwitting tools of those predators.
Anyone sufficiently clueless/ignorant to not know why the Marines, Royal Navy etc, need STOVL needs more help than I can give. Ask your parents for a better education.
You're (self?) delusional. The power that counted was not in East Berlin but in Moscow and any other USSR premier than Gorby would have made that bet a billion mark loss on his way to making 1989 1961 all over again by forcibly closing the iron curtain.
Chamberlain & Deladier were both as delusional in 1935 as you are now.
There is no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind that Putin would have sent in the tanks & THATS who we have to contend with today.
The Marines and the Royal Navy (among others like Spain) both need them.
If your argument is that both are irrelevant, I'd love to see a video of you walking into a bar with any number of same and expressing your opinion of such as your subsequent education would be edifying (and probably not even violent). But naah you'll just remain hiding behind your keyboard.
Slashdot Mirror
Rereading TFA I see that keystrokes were explicitly mentioned which I hadn't caught the first read. I concur that they are indeed illegal in the E.U. but the use of social media & web browsing patterns depends on just how it is implemented.
In the E.U. Companies can and do require that their employees sign usage charters in order to access company networks. I know because I've deployed firewalls and network filtering equipment to quite a few of them and implemented the filtering policies.
Don't want to believe me? Try working for Siemens, Airbus, Renault, Vodaphone, Daimler, Agip, Total, Areva, etc. Don't want to sign the charter? Fine, don't, but your access to corporate networks is denied.
NOT Illegal. Companies just need to get signed authorisation that there is a company policy for this kind of stuff and make sure that all employees sign it. Don't want to sign it? Access to the company networks is refused. Need network access to do your job? Sign the damn paper.
There are a few off-limits categories though: Banking & Health among them that must be whitelisted to avoid being swept into the monitoring.
I have a work environment and a private environment (using VMWare).
My work traffic goes out over the company Internet.
Everything else (including some work stuff) goes out over my 4G phone (I have "unlimited" downloads and use 20-50GB/month).
Many moons ago I was complaining to our internal support people that the web & protocol filtering they had put into place was preventing me from working normally (Uploading debug logs and device diags to manufacturer support ssh servers is part of my job). I got a standard corporate response: We'll look into it.
Given that I'm fortunate enough to live somewhere where we have true competition between 4G Internet service providers and it this costs me $20/month, I set this up.
And this is just another of the lies your mommy told you to make you feel better: When you open your mouth and prove that you are a fool nobody cares what you say
Xmarks existed long before Mozilla added their bookmark sync and one could set it up to use any web server instead of just trusting xmarks.com.
I used xmarks for years but when it stopped working about a month ago & there were no signs that xmarks knew what they had broken I moved to FF sync.
That’d be better than the present “whiny researchers want the USG to spend > $100 million to reconstitute and launch a canceled satellite to fill a temporary gap in coverage because they refuse anything less than that hugely expensive satellite”
Yeah his post was 100% vapid snark but who knows, he may be able to rub two neurons together and have something intelligent to say. Thank you for replying intelligently.
Yes, I recognize that budget & time are both issues and they are not in a favored research sector by those holding the purse strings at present. However, the large spare satellite no longer exists because it was decided that the $100 Million+ it would have needed to be launched were never going to be funded. The specific instrument they claim to want in orbit still exists. Why aren't they attempting to get just that up if it is so important?
Or is it that "Evil Republicans cut my project" is more important than the instrument?
I just don't understand why these scientists are apparently saying "we _must_ have the same massive satellites and _cannot_ find any way of using the existing sensor on a cheaper smaller sat so that we can have it in orbit before 2022".
Are there possible reasons? Certainly. Sensor size and power requirements, minimal size to a functional maneuvering compatible satellite bus, our refusal to consider anything less than the original large satellite has painted us into a corner, etc.
But do we get tany of his on /., a supposedly technical site? No. we get "Evil Republicans DESTROYED a critical satellite" as if Timothee was back to posting click-bait on sunday mornings.
The era in which satellites cost hundreds of millions of dollars and thus satellites needed to be big, bulky and expensive is drawing to a close, but you're just an internet commentator who thinks that building a soda rocket makes you better qualified to answer than someone who read articles by sat builders and owners of constellations of satellites like SES.
But since you're such a _knowledgeable_ person why don't you explain _why_ these scientists are unable to come up with a minimally capable satellite using the available sensor that doesn't weigh a ton and need a $100 million dollar launch in less than 5 years? I mean, surely these scientists wont take longer to build a satellite than Space-X is going to need to develop and launch BFR? Or is your internet commenting limited to snark?
Huge satellites that cost dozens of millions to build and hundreds of millions to launch are part of the problem.
The senators from states that used to support the Shuttle and are now pissing away billions uselessly for SLS are also part of the problem.
The rigidity of these scientists who don't seem able to devise a minimal cost solution in less than 6 years and instead seem to me to be insisting on yet another clone of their existing satellites are also part of the problem.
Oh look, the lazy self entitled ignoramus is back.
Still think everyone on the Internet is at your service? Yup .
Still to lazy to do any research by your own? Looks like it, as your ignorance hasn't changed.
Now run back and pester your mommy for an education, you ignorant git.
quibble
/quibble
They are presently in the Asteroid Belt but until their orbits are determined, it is not possible to state with confidence that they do not pose a threat to Earth. It is vanishingly unlikely that they _do_ pose a danger to earth but still...
Right, because with your level of ignorance there is no difference in mission between helicopters and F35s. They go up, they go down, same thing for you.
My flaming of the ignorant tells /. readers one thing about me: I do not suffer fools gladly. Now run off to your mommy so that she can tell you that your comments, no matter how inane, are just as valid as those of someone who knows what they are talking about. Because your mommy tells you that the important thing is that you feel good about yourself, she says nobody cares if you're an ignorant twit.
It is indicative of your level of lazy self-entitled cluelessness that you write "you still haven't really answered the original question" replying to a post in which I wrote:
That the Marines, the Royal Navy, Spain and Italy all have warships that cannot host "conventional" planes like the F35A or even catapult versions like the F35C but _can_ host STOVL planes like the F35B is blindingly evident to anyone that can use even simple google searches like "F35 STOVL" or "F35 variants".
I don't rage at every question. I flame idiots so visibly ignorant that they cannot understand the _answer_ to questions that they ask.
And no, I will not do your homework for you.
I've always wondered what makes some people think that they can expose their ignorance on the Internet without everyone else realizing that they are fools..
That the Marines, the Royal Navy, Spain and Italy all have warships that cannot host "conventional" planes like the F35A or even catapult versions like the F35C but _can_ host STOVL planes like the F35B is blindingly evident to anyone that can use even simple google searches like "F35 STOVL" or "F35 variants".
So junior, what exactly is it that prevented you from doing _any_ research on your own? /. is at your service? Yes, clearly, you think that _your_ ignorance is something _everyone_else_ should be working to correct.
- Your lack of education? Oh, you're clearly ignorant on the subject or you wouldn't have written "What for? I don't know either way".
- Your overweening sense of entitlement that makes you think that _everyone_ who reads
- Your lazyness. Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! He's too _lazy_ to spend 30 seconds googling and a minute or two reading.
Learn to correct your ignorance by yourself and stop wasting everyone else's time. It would have taken you 5 min to learn for yourself why Opportunist's "Nobody needs the F35 as a military plane" was both false and hyperbole. One can argue that the F35B is too expensive but not that it isn't needed.
Yeah, I'm a cranky old fart, but _you_ asked _me_.
You stated "Nobody needs the F35 as a military plane" which is quite clearly wrong as I have repeatedly pointed out. Were your master Putin's wishes in cancelling the F35 to bear fruit all 7 MEUs as well as the Royal fleet arms and Spanish naval forces would become toothless. But that and not any "savings" are what you really want, right Ivan?, (Vladimir? Pyotr?)
Go ahead and attempt to cover by moving the goalposts again. Seeing you squirm is amusing.
Your claimed "economic dependency prevents war" has been shown to be insufficient in almost every important instance: WWI, WWII, etc.
Putin does not "depend" upon anyone's money. As for strife between Russia and the West, you appear ignorant of the sanctions imposed on Russia after their repeated annexations and continuing bald faced lies, patriotic little green men = overt russian support. War by proxy is still war.
None are so blind as those that refuse to see applies to your continued ignorance of Putin's actions and it's consequences.
Whoosh...
The remark on Putin was to reinforce that your example is clearly obsolete while Putin holds power. Surely even _you_ can admit that? Or are you _that_ delusional?
For once my sig is relevant. Go ask the Ukrainians and Georgians if they are content to have Putin forcibly annex those parts of their territory that he desires.
Ask the people in Taiwan if they will willingly live under Peking's rule.
Ask South Korea and Japan if they are happy with North Korea's saber rattling.
Ash Cubans if they are willing to fall under U.S rule for that matter (though you may get a different answer if you ask in the city with the largest Cuban population and the second largest - Miami & Havana respectively)
The only people that continue to push for universal peace by calling for _us_ to lay down all our means of defending ourselves from predators are the witting or unwitting tools of those predators.
Anyone sufficiently clueless/ignorant to not know why the Marines, Royal Navy etc, need STOVL needs more help than I can give. Ask your parents for a better education.
You're (self?) delusional. The power that counted was not in East Berlin but in Moscow and any other USSR premier than Gorby would have made that bet a billion mark loss on his way to making 1989 1961 all over again by forcibly closing the iron curtain.
Chamberlain & Deladier were both as delusional in 1935 as you are now.
There is no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind that Putin would have sent in the tanks & THATS who we have to contend with today.
The Marines and the Royal Navy (among others like Spain) both need them.
If your argument is that both are irrelevant, I'd love to see a video of you walking into a bar with any number of same and expressing your opinion of such as your subsequent education would be edifying (and probably not even violent). But naah you'll just remain hiding behind your keyboard.
Nobody? The U.S. Marines & the British navy have _another_ source for STOVL jets adequate to their needs?
Anyone claiming that the F35 is an unneeded program is clearly too ignorant or too biased to comment.
What a _novel_ idea, because buying your enemy off has worked _so_ well with North Korea...