Slashdot Mirror


U.S. May Reduce Non-Military GPS Accuracy

ward99 writes "The U.S. government may be degrading GPS satellite signals, to cripple Iraqi forces' ability to use those systems during the war. This could potentially reduce accuracy from ~3 meters to over ~100 meters. Users depending on GPS systems may want to do sanity checks on any data returned by those systems during the war. The U.S. will do this by increasing the inaccuracies on the civilian C/A code, turning back on S/A (Selective Availability), by having the satellites deliberately and randomly return inaccurate information on where they are. S/A degrades GPS accuracy to only 100 meters 95 percent of the time and 300 meters the other 5 percent of the time. This will not effect the military P code."

654 comments

  1. This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Inf0phreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    shouldn't have scratched our own satelite project (named Galileo, IIRC)

    --
    ________
    Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
    1. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by pteron · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/gal ileo/faq/index_en.htm
      it hasn't been scratched.

    2. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Galileo is doing well and will be operational in 2008. What are you smoking?

    3. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Amroarer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, there's always GLONASS.

      [sigh] Poor Russian space program.

    4. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by October_30th · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wouldn't funding and improving an existing system such as Glonass be less expensive?

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    5. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Amroarer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even if it was, it would still remain under the control of the Russian military, just as GPS is under the control of the Pentagon.

      The whole point (well, one of the major ones, anyway) of Galileo was to create a network which wouldn't be under military control, and so could be relied upon not to be switched off at inconvenient moments.

    6. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My global positioning system used a calendar and the stars. The drawbacks were that it could only be used on a clear night.

    7. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Now that's funny!

      For a jackass like you, probably.

    8. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +2 ???

      propaganda getting to the moderators too i see.

    9. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by YE · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's not been scratched, it's waiting for a committee to decide when another committee will meet to reach an agreement on when to plan the first meeting of the EGSC (European Galileo Scheduling Commission).

    10. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      you don't think the political contol can be bribed to turn it off?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    11. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what exactly do you mean by being bailed out? I dont remeber your shithole of a country ever bailing us out. If I remeber correctly its always you that need bailing out from one thing or another *cough*vietnam*cough*

    12. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Amroarer · · Score: 1

      Good luck persuading the EC member nations to agree on anything!

      I think the current political situation neatly illustrates the difficulties that would be involved...

    13. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      You mean, some goverments representing a different stand on foreign policy than the majority of their people (and even some members of the goverment)?

      Compromises are always more difficult to find than dictating a certain policy. Still the EU exists (it hasn't been called EC since the 90s) and has agreements on building planes and rockets. (The whole EU is a construct based on found agreements) . Upcoming are a joint military force for UN mandated missions and a joint military R&D.

      Granted, it would be a little more complicated, to convince the EU to switch off Galileo (or to create it, for that matter), or to wage a war. It is left to your unterstanding of democracy, wether you find that bad or good.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    14. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by f97tosc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      shouldn't have scratched our own satelite project (named Galileo, IIRC

      I am from Europe myself but I am not sure I agree. The reason Galileo is not going anywhere quick is that is enormously expensive (just as GPS was).

      Is it really worth the money and the effort to send up an entire system so that coverage can be ensured during the say 2% of time when the GPS signals are distorted for military reasons? I can see a any number of scientific/ infrastructure projects that are much more worthwhile. Of course, European taxpayers never were as stingy as the Americans.

      Tor

    15. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't know about that EU army....sounds like the faciests found out how to work inside the system.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    16. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Aaron+M.+Renn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gimme a break. The Galileo system was conceived and designed as a "euro-prestige" project. Even if the US military decides to degrade GPS today (which nobody from the US military has said that they are going to do - at least not that I've heard), they are launching many more satellites with civilian only circuits which in the future will provide a separate signal from the military one. Galileo is transparently designed to as a duplicate to the US system to demonstrate EU technical competence and as a prop to their space industry. Loyloa de Palacio, EU Transport Commissioner, said, "Europe wishes to be present on the international scene ... in all aspects of cutting-edge technologies." This is hardly the only project in which the euro-govt's are spending big to try to duplicate already existing US tech. The A400M military transport is another example.

    17. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is it really worth the money and the effort to send up an entire system so that coverage can be ensured during the say 2% of time when the GPS signals are distorted for military reasons?



      Yes!! I work for a USA company that is working on Gallileo receivers. The higher precision and reliability of the Gallileo system will likely entirely supplant the other two GNSS systems.

    18. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by forgoil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the French has threathened to veto? ;)

      All dumbs jokes aside, EU really really needs to get a GPS system of our own. We should of course let the US use it, and use the original GPS when appropriate (for example extra accurcy or if one fail etc). It is fairly dumb to give away so much power to a foreign military.

    19. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by sphealey · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This was *exactly* why we here in Europe shouldn't have scratched our own satelite project (named Galileo, IIRC)
      I would have a hard time seeing the EU not including exactly the same capability in Galileo, since control of precision targeting capability is critical for national defense. Of course, perhaps the EU is anticipating that it will have no concept of national defense by the time Galileo arrives.

      sPh

    20. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by tubs · · Score: 1

      I read that as "farcists", and I wondered why anyone would call the EU a farce.

      Then it struck me, it is. :-)

      --

      try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

    21. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Patrick13 · · Score: 1

      I thought there was a GPS hack anyhow, where if you fed the data of 3 GPS located in the same place into a computer, it would triangulate and correct for the distortion error.

      --
      ::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
    22. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by sphealey · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I thought there was a GPS hack anyhow, where if you fed the data of 3 GPS located in the same place into a computer, it would triangulate and correct for the distortion error.
      Nope. Remember the quote from The Firm: "Remember - I'm smarter than you."? The guys who designed GPS were better mathematicans and better planners than just about everyone else. This possibility is covered in the design such that SA really does work. Until you get into post-processing, etc.

      sPh

    23. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by emh0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      havn't scratched our own project (Galileo). The first of the 30 satellites (27 + 3 active spares) will be launched in 2004, with an initial service operational by 2006 and the full system operational by 2008. The links are here (European Commission site), and here ESA site).

      I think you must have been mistaken - IIRC the US tried to persuade Europe to dump the project, basically because it will be accurate to around 45cm (guaranteed to withing 100cm), whereas GPS can often be several dozen metres out (and has even known to be several hundred km out!), and the US gov doesn't want European civilians having better tech than their military. The project was debated but they finally agreed to go ahead with it anyway and tell the US gov to get lost (ok, more politely, but that was the basic effect).

    24. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, US may drop bombs in Iraq, possibly feed diesel fuel to tanks, and may actually be using a gunpowder derivative in their bullets..

    25. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by linzeal · · Score: 3, Funny

      But we are your friends, and we like your freedom fries, mmmmmmm freedom fries.

    26. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      You are aware, of course, that GPS is first and foremost a targeting system for cruise missiles? Developed for one reason and one reason only, to turn the Soviet military into liquid green glass? The civilian applications are an afterthought.

      This, as in so many things provided by America, is taken for granted by Europeans.
      "Oh, dear...they can't reintroduce Selective Availibility...let's pass a UN resolution against it! Oh, wait, I forgot, we Europeans decided it's OK to flagrantly violate UN resolutions you don't agree with."

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    27. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You know, GPS is a military technology. It's used to guide weapons to their targets. To bury your head in the sand to the military used for this technology, in return for the spiteful satisfaction of telling the US gov to "get lost" is simply foolish.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    28. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by ponxx · · Score: 1

      >"Oh, dear...they can't reintroduce Selective
      >Availibility...let's pass a UN resolution
      >against it! Oh, wait, I forgot, we Europeans
      >decided it's OK to flagrantly violate UN
      >resolutions you don't agree with."

      hey? The one thing almost no-one argues with in the whole Iraq process is that the Security council has NOT authorised a military strike.

      It is the US that first said even if a motion wasn't pass due to a veto, they'd still have moral authority from a majority voting for it (wonder what the administration would do if the russians or chinese said the same about a us veto). And now they realised they won't even get a simple majority, they just ignored the UN...

      Anyway, not saying whether the war is right or wrong, but ignoring the UN is what the US are doing at the moment, not europe.

    29. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I wonder why the US got into Vietnam in the first place? Could it have been that a European nation which used to control it needed to be bailed out? *cough* France *cough*

    30. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by KingFoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is dgps, and I'm pretty rusty but it goes something like this.

      You have a gps at a fixed location (like a building) logging where it is (which would wander from the introduced errors)
      If you were to plot the latitude and longitude, it would be circle like, with the center being a good bet on where your gps receiver is located. Knowing that, you could then broadcast the correction over radio as a differential. I remember that the University of Rhode Island's research vessel used it back in the bad old days of SA.

    31. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really worth the money and the effort to send up an entire system so that coverage can be ensured during the say 2% of time when the GPS signals are distorted for military reasons?

      When more and more critical civilian systems such as air traffic control, navigation etc. depend on accurate satellite positioning it's not an option to have a system that may or may not be available.

      Of course, it would be much cheaper if the existing GPS system could be used, but that would require the US military to relinquish control to an international organisation such as the UN. Naturally, since GPS is a military system the US wouldn't do that.

      Before the Galileo project was even started there were discussions about an agreement where the EU would pay part of the operating costs for GPS, and in return the US would guarantee availability. That didn't work out, again, since its a military system.

      AC

    32. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What countries are you refering to? With "your shithole of a country" and vietnam reference, I guess you mean France. Where are you from? The term us doesn't help much.

    33. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, as in so many things provided by America, is taken for granted by Europeans.
      "Oh, dear...they can't reintroduce Selective Availibility...let's pass a UN resolution against it!


      No-one is questioning the US' right to do whatever it wants with the GPS systems. There have been attempts to strike an agreement where EU would pay a fee in exchange for guaranteed availability. That didn't work out, and that's why the Galileo project was started.

      Oh, wait, I forgot, we Europeans decided it's OK to flagrantly violate UN resolutions you don't agree with.

      What resolutions are you talking about? Obviously it can't be 1441 regarding Iraq, because that one calls for inspections by UN bodies such as UNMOVIC and IAEA and that's exactly what almost all european countries are pushing for..

    34. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by rickbrodie · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't be saying that if you were sitting at the top of mount everest right now.

    35. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Hentai · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And you think for ONE SECOND the US military will allow this?

      Think about it - the whole reason they turn down accuracy is to keep their enemies from accessing the technology. If the US military doesn't CONTROL the technology, how will they keep their enemies from accessing it?

      At the point the enemy starts using an open GPS, it becomes, de facto, an enemy asset, and thus targetable. I give it six weeks into the first engagement after a EU GPS becomes reality before the US gives the EU an ultimatum: Shut them down or we'll blow them out of the sky.

      And don't think we won't.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
    36. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      It's as if the entire world is against the U.S. It's not, France alone thwarted the U.S. from getting U.N. coverage. And now the French want to have their cake and eat it too, by saying they'll enter the war if Iraq uses WMD? I THOUGHT SADDAM DIDN'T HAVE WMD, FRANCE!

      It's really, really odd how so much breath is expended on how the U.S. is ignoring the U.N. and NOT ONE WORD ABOUT IRAQ'S VIOLATIONS.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    37. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by djrogers · · Score: 1

      Foreign military? Hmmm, interesting that you put it that way. It seems that unless your own country completely controls the system, you ARE giving away that power to a foreign military. Or have you forgotten that the EU isn't a country?

      --
      Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
    38. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by CelloJake · · Score: 1

      The reasoon this is done in post processing is that if you have radio communication from a fixed point to the receiver, why the heck would you need GPS. Just setup you're own ground based positioning system. If you need to analyze the data from a receiver to find out what the real locations were, say for mapping, you could then compare with the fixed locations results to make corrections. But if you are capable of making the corrections on the fly it would be easier to triangulate from fixed points anyways. -Jacob

    39. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1
      Ha. The US and UK together might be able to get away with attacking Iraq. but there is no way in hell they could ever get away with destroying GPS satilites.

      Still a clever troll I spose.

    40. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by pizpot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      French Fries--> Freedom Fries--> Democracy Fries--> Democracy but don't vote against us Fries--> Dictatorship Fries!

    41. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by t0ny · · Score: 0, Troll
      The whole point (well, one of the major ones, anyway) of Galileo was to create a network which wouldn't be under military control, and so could be relied upon not to be switched off at inconvenient moments.

      Ya, we wouldnt want terrorists, suicide bombers, or hostile foreigners deprived of using "mapping software".

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    42. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by idontneedanickname · · Score: 1
      Is it really worth the money and the effort to send up an entire system so that coverage can be ensured during the say 2% of time when the GPS signals are distorted for military reasons?

      Yes, what happens when the US, for some reason denies Europe access to GPS (maybe to threaten them in one way or another, or when there is a conflict between European contries and the USA). So when you're being attacked, do you want to rely on your enemy to supply you with mission critical tactical data? I think not...

    43. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And now the French want to have their cake and eat it too, by saying they'll enter the war if Iraq uses WMD? I THOUGHT SADDAM DIDN'T HAVE WMD, FRANCE!"

      It's a more polite way of saying they won't be going in. Similar to saying "if pigs fly".
      Alternatively, it's saying "If it turns out we were wrong, we will do the right thing". Unlike Bush whose approach is "Looks like the inspectors are going to prove we were wrong--better cover up by attacking before they can make the results definite!"

      As to violations--let's get real. The US has violated many UN resolutions, and is about to violate not just a resolution but the most basic parts of the charter. So has Israel. So, indeed, have many other countries. Iraq meanwhile hasn't jumped quite fast enough for Bush's taste--but you and I both know that even if Saddam was over Blix's knee saying "Thank you master, may I have another", Bush would still be saying he refuses to disarm.

      Rufus Polson

    44. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by lingqi · · Score: 1

      Russia has their own version of the GPS.

      no WAAS AFAIK, but functionality is the same... I guess u can consiredr russia "europe," right?

      --

      My life in the land of the rising sun.

    45. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      Maybe the US military won't mind if Europe's super-accurate Galileo GPS system only covers European targets.. er, I mean cities. ;-)

    46. Re:This was *exactly* why we here in Europe... by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      I guess u can consiredr russia "europe," right?

      Ahh, American geography at it's best :D

  2. A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't consumer GPS units be modified to read from the militaries signal?

    1. Re:A question by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      Because it is encrypted.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    2. Re:A question by Apro+im · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because that would defeat the purpose of the military code.

      GPS 101:

      Every GPS unit stores internally a fairly accurate clock, a database of every GPS sattelite's individual code and its expected position in the sky for something like the next few weeks. This information is updated by syncing with a sattelite every so often. These codes are long enough that based on what portion of the code the receiver is receiving at a given time from a particular sattelite, it can calculate the time elapsed since the signal left the sattelite (by comparing to what portion of the code the sattelite should be transmitting according to its internal clock).
      Using time elapsed, and roughly the speed of light (with minor corrections) for the speed of the wave, it can then calculate distance from the sattelite. Given three sattelites, you narrow down your location to one of two points (the maximum number of points of intersection of two non-congruent spheres. Luckily, one of these points is almost always inside the earth or in outer space, so a fourth sattelite isn't needed for that triangulation.
      A fourth sattelite is used, however to make corrections for the GPS receiver's internal clock. That is, the receiver assumes its clock is off of the atomic clock in each sattelite by a constante amount, and therefore a fourth sphere won't intersect either of the points of intersection. However, by correcting for a constant time difference, the points of intersection eventually line up, and that is a fairly good approximation of the unit's location.
      This means, by telling the sattelitest to vary the rate of transmission of their own unique code in some random way, the accuracy can be made much lower.
      Since the system is based on knowledge of the codes, and only the civilian codes are published, the military codes look like just noise.

      So there you have it - if the military doesn't give us the necessary information about the sattelites (information that changes every so often), we have no way of using the military-level accuracy.

    3. Re:A question by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 0, Funny

      First guess says you need satellite access codes. Second guess says the stream is probably VERY well encrypted. Third guess says that if you access the military channels without permission, you'll have men in black helicopters doing fastrope descents on your place of residence within a few minutes (it's GPS, so they already know where you are.) Though I could just be blowing this out my ass, who knows.

    4. Re:A question by Apro+im · · Score: 1

      I thought about encryption, but then I realized - no actual information is sent in the bits - all information is derived from timing. Encrypting an already arbitrary stream of bits seems a little... fruitless to me.

    5. Re:A question by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 1

      First guess says you need satellite access codes

      Yep.

      Second guess says the stream is probably VERY well encrypted.

      Possibly but I doubt it. The technology is rather old and I don't believe that the code used is that clever. More importantly, there are an awful lot of manufacturers that know the codes. It wouldn't surprise me if the code has fallen into the wrong hands. (I've seen somebody type the code into a military GPS receiver that had lost its keys as he knew it off the top of his head. This is not the way it is supposed to be done....) Finally, you would expect the code to be changed regularily as well......

      Third guess says that if you access the military channels...

      Nope. The channel is one way only. You can try and decode it as much as you want as your GPS receiver does not have to send anything back. If you manage to decode it, good luck to you, the US mil won't know you are doing it.

      --
      wot no sig
    6. Re:A question by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      No, there is information in the GPS signal. e.g. where the satellite is. What time was it when the satellite sent the signal. Where are all the other satellites (every now and again).

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    7. Re:A question by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      If you can't have military-level accuracy, you just need a bomb that would make up the difference.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    8. Re:A question by Sunda666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, most units have a 12-channel parallell receiver, so it can do a pretty job and narrow your
      position within 9 meters. 4-channel GPS units are things of the past (or used sometimes when size
      matters more than accuracy).

      Also, there are a "new" addition to the GPS system called WAAS (wide-area-augmentation-system) which
      uses differente sattelites (this ones being geo-stationary) to send differentials information about
      the GPS's sattellites signals. This way, a civilian WAAS-enabled unit like mine (garmin etrex vista)
      can have an accuracy of about 3 meters, in theory. I find WAAS pretty dodgy and dont tend to use it
      much because of higher battery comsumption and higer CPU usage, for a small improvement in the
      accuracy (I mostly use the GPS in the car, so...)

      cheers.

      --


      ``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
    9. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some can be. It is something like a firmware re-flash and it lets you use military signals.

    10. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minor quibble: If you use your GPS mostly in the car, why not use WAAS? Battery consumption isn't a problem when you plug it into the lighter, and CPU usage isn't really an issue either.

    11. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why couldn't we use several samples from "degraded" GPS?

      It is just a measurement error, as far as I can understand your point, so we can work around it statistically.

    12. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This means, by telling the sattelitest to vary the rate of transmission of their own unique code in some random way, the accuracy can be made much lower.

      Looks like a systematic error that drift back an forth. Mmmm.

    13. Re:A question by Sunda666 · · Score: 1

      eeeek, I should have mentioned, the higher CPU usage makes the map drawing slower on the
      vista... thats the reason I usually turn it off. Also, 3-meter accuracy while moving
      at 100km/h is pretty useless.

      cheers.

      --


      ``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
  3. Army's stuff by SlamMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't like it, but it's the army's stuff. They can degrade it that far if they want to. Don't like it? Send up your own GPS satalites.

    --
    Mod point free since 2001
    1. Re:Army's stuff by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or use differential GPS, and get accuracy to a few tens of millimeters.

    2. Re:Army's stuff by dago · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's ongoing

      --
      #include "coucou.h"
    3. Re: Army's stuff by jkrise · · Score: 1

      Looks like you've got a Borked edition of GPS. Call Operq for the Service Pack.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    4. Re:Army's stuff by Apro+im · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, won't work - differential GPS only really corrects the innacuracies inherent to the correctly operating system.

      IIRC, differential GPS is where you correct for clock error by using a fixed point with a very accurate latitude/longitude measurement as one of your "sattelites". However, let's say the GPS sattelites decide to coordinatedly broadcast the signal that according to the receiver's internal database hey would a few nanoseconds in the future - it would throw off all correction measures, since they all depend on all your sattelites (including your ground station "sattelite") to be using the same clock, and that that clock matches up with the database.

    5. Re:Army's stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Army doesn't own it. People own it. The money spent on the satellites came from people's taxes.

    6. Re:Army's stuff by pteron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really.

      You are correct in saying that the diferential station knows where it is to high accuracy. It doesn't act as another GPS station though, it sends out corrections to the received signals from the GPS satellites. Hence it would indeed correct for SA in its coverage area.

    7. Re:Army's stuff by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Army doesn't own it. People own it. The money spent on the satellites came from people's taxes.

      And the people (through their elected representives) gave the money to the Army for military use.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    8. Re:Army's stuff by Apro+im · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah - now I remember. It compares its own location with what it gets from GPS, and tells the unit how much to correct by...

      I suppose, though it only expects certain kinds of discrepancies (that is to say - for example it looks for a constant clock offset that corrects things). If the introduced discrepancies are not systematic like that, it may brak down (that is, the regression used to correct by the ground station is based on knowing the shape of the regression curve - if it's in any way not that shape, it's no good any more.)

    9. Re:Army's stuff by troc · · Score: 5, Informative

      D GPS works, as described, by comparing it's known location with that received from the satellites and transmits - in real time - the correction factor, so the correction factor varies with the changing position give by GPS. It requires the DGPS station to be fairly close to the handset as it needs to be using the same satellites - and therefore to be receiving the same information. So non-systematic errors are equally well fixed, in fact the error is non-systematic, it's simply a less accurate measure of the time given by the atomic clock on each satellite (less decimal places) which leads to a larger "cocked hat" for the handset to be located inside (cocker hat from the old days of triangulation where you drew lines for the bearings of three places and assumed you were inside the small triangle where they intercepted.

      Something I still practice when out sailing (or mountaineering etc) just in case my GPS packs up ;)

      troc

      --
      Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
    10. Re:Army's stuff by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Alright, I will!!

    11. Re:Army's stuff by massive-cow · · Score: 1

      > Or use differential GPS, and get accuracy to a few > tens of millimeters.

      That would be centimetre...

      --
      Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. - Dijkstra
    12. Re:Army's stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know..if there was a medal for ignorance, I think you just would have won the gold.

      A lot of countries don't have the technology to build satellites, or the money to research said technology..thus, they rely on the existing infrastructure. And some people rely -extensively- on accurate GPS measurements..sea-faring vessels, civilian aircraft, the list goes on. Think of how they might be affected if they weren't even aware this change was taking place; particularly if they were conducting research in a remote location, and relied upon GPS to..well..figure out where the hell they are.

      Send up your own satellites indeed. I'm suprised an American can actually speak those words, yet still be amazed why they're so hated outside their own country.

    13. Re:Army's stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't like it, but it's the army's stuff. They can degrade it that far if they want to. Don't like it? Send up your own GPS satalites.

      Umm ok .. except that if we send up our own satellites, the Army will still want it disabled so the enemy won't be able to use it against us.

    14. Re:Army's stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, Americans provide a free service to the world and then wonder why everyone hates them. How can they be so stupid?

    15. Re:Army's stuff by Halvard · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's the Air Force's. The Navy's page is here and this is the Army's page.

    16. Re:Army's stuff by moon_monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, you can believe what some German automobile club says, or you can talk to the Pentagon - According to the story on New Scientst they've promised not to degrade the signal. "We would not create a global problem for transport out of spite for Saddam," says a spokesman at the US Department of Defence.

    17. Re:Army's stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't like it, but it's the army's stuff. They can degrade it that far if they want to. Don't like it? Send up your own GPS satalites.

      Screw the Army. I think the US citizens should ban together and petition their government to send up an accurate system for civilian use even better than this military one. Then the DoD can do whatever they want with their lame ass GPS and my home made cruise missiles can still be on target using the civilian system.

    18. Re:Army's stuff by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      and it doesnt matter, as everyone who has used GPS before it was a fashon statement, it HAD built in 100 foot error for the civillian side. It was after the gulf war they turned off the civillian degradation signal as a "benefit to the people"

      It's nothing new, nothing to get scared about... if you used GPS for a longer time than 10 years you are used to it and are not suprised.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    19. Re:Army's stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Thats realy not a correct description of differential GPS. You have your groundstation at a known location, and it will measure the broadcasted signals from each visable satellite. Since it knows where it sits, it can calculate corrections for each satellite. These corrections are then sent to your DGPS-receiver, effectively erasing the effect of SA (Select Availability).

      Read more on

      http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/faq/dgpsfaq.htm

    20. Re:Army's stuff by Epistax · · Score: 1

      uh no, people spend their taxes, and a certain group of people (we'll call them R) allocate the money to military, more and more each year. Ironically this same group also wants to lower those taxes.

    21. Re:Army's stuff by computechnica · · Score: 1

      Actually the US Air Force owns and operates GPS satellites. It is run through the Navstar Global Positioning System Joint Program Office in Los Angeles, a USAF agency.

    22. Re:Army's stuff by irving47 · · Score: 2, Informative

      When the resolution (if that's the right word for it) was upgraded so that civilians could use it for accuracy up to 2-3 meters instead of 15-20ish, they were *very* clear that the resolution would be degraded when there were military actions.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    23. Re:Army's stuff by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      Someone mod the parent up; very informative article in the link.

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    24. Re:Army's stuff by fname · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Here's the dirty little secret. Many soldiers use their own civilian GPS devices, b/c they have better features. So, I'd bet there are more American and British soldiers using civilian GPS than there are Iraqis. I doubt GPS will be degraded, and if so, it will be brief.

    25. Re:Army's stuff by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As far as I understand, the way to correct for SA is to have a ground station at a fixed point, and compare its signal to yours, but you have to be using the same satellites. If you are not receiving signal from the same satellites it won't help you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Army's stuff by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think the army is too worried about DGPS. It would solve the civian problems of accessing accurate GPS data, but not the military problems. Why? Because the DGPS station would need to have a transmitter, and it would have to remain at a very precisely fixed geographic location, and transmitters don't last long in war - especially if they are in fixed locations.

      I know the US is actively looking to find ways to deny potential enemies access to 3rd party satellite services. If the EU launces their own GPS system, they would be expected to play ball with the US and turn it off in areas where the US military is operating. If they don't the satellites could be considered a military device (since they would be used by a military), and they would probably be jammed at the least, and if that doesn't work then they could be targetted. I'm guessing most corporations that own satellites would just play ball - those satellites cost big money and I doubt their insurance protects against US anti-satellite weapons. Government-owned satellites might be a different story - depending on whether the foreign government wants to make the political move of standing up to the US.

      Keep in mind that providing targetting data to a military is hardly a neutral stance. If the US provided military GPS receivers to Chechen rebels, you can bet the Russians would be ticked.

    27. Re:Army's stuff by ByTor-2112 · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Someone mod up the parent. I read over a year ago that the US Military had the capaibility to selectively deny GPS signals by geographic areas and that this was one of the reasons they turned off SA. This kind of anti-US FUD should not be posted at will. The front page link should be updated with a story to the contrary.

    28. Re:Army's stuff by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Yep, the fact that many American soldiers are carring thier own little Garmins, and walkie-talkie/gps combos would make it a serious tactical error for the DoD to degrade the civilian GPS signal.

      I've read that the DoD issues GPS at the rate of one per squad and one per armored vehicle and most soldiers carry thier own.

      If they've not degraded the signal after the NYC-DC attacks and Afghanistan, I don't see why they would now.

      Half the stories are about Iraq jamming all the GPS and now the other half are about the US degrading the signal.

    29. Re:Army's stuff by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Only on a regional basis.

    30. Re:Army's stuff by stienman · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is incorrect. A DGPS transmitter knows its own location, and can therefore determine the error of each satellite in its view.

      It then sends a DGPS stream out, and any GPS receiver capable of receiving that stream can remove the satellite error for satellites they share with the DGPS transmitter.

      However, typical low end DGPS will only reduce the error (when SA is turned ON) to 10 meters or so. The receivers used by surveyers with DGPS can go to the centimeter level, longitudinally and latitudinally. Altitude is a different matter...

      Garmin is using a system similar to DGPS called WAAS which also helps reduce the error.

      The encoded GPS signal the military uses along with high end receivers will, IIRC, go down to the meter without any DGPS. The reason they can't get any better than to the meter is that the atmospheric effects on the signal can't easily be corrected for in real time.

      A decent tutorial can be found here

      -Adam

    31. Re:Army's stuff by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      GPS is a system for guiding U.S. military weapons to their targets. Nothing more. Gold medal for ignorance, huh? SA degrades accuracy so that it's useless for weapon targeting. Civilian users will hardly notice a difference.

      I'm surprised a non-American can be so ungrateful. No wonder they're so hated inside America.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    32. Re:Army's stuff by irving47 · · Score: 1

      Good point. But if, for example, those Iraqi drones were GPS guided, or some high-tech sleeper cell in the US or any other 'infidel' country were to have constructed ones that were, it would probably not be a bad idea to downgrade it everywhere for non-military users.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    33. Re:Army's stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, debris does sometime cause a sattelite to explode in orbit, and the debris can be, I don't know, the size of a copper bb. Euro GPS that didn't play ball would mysteriously breakup due to collisions with untrackable debris.

    34. Re:Army's stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your cock fights suck, you dirty bastard

    35. Re:Army's stuff by MegaHamsterX · · Score: 1

      Your tax dollars DO pay for George W's $1100 haircuts though. Damn, his cousin must cut hair good.


      They paid for Clinton's too, George has yet to extend an airport shutdown while getting one (on AirForce 1).

    36. Re:Army's stuff by John+Sullivan · · Score: 1

      The GPS signal is *very* hard to jam - it was designed to be so. And I hope the US would think twice about the risks of a large amount of satellite debris floating around in an orbit they might actually want to use themselves.

      Having several other sources of GPS or GPS-style data would be of benefit to everyone, partly because no one entity could then control GPS availability or enforce a deliberately degraded signal on the world.

      --
      This is my World Wide Web of Whatever
    37. Re:Army's stuff by masq · · Score: 1

      Very True. Thanks for the reminder.

      Please Note: I slagged Clinton just as hard while he was in power - I don't have a "biased agenda".

    38. Re:Army's stuff by RestiffBard · · Score: 1

      Well, Americans as a whole, are pretty dumb. Being an American I can say this. Dumb is what we do. We do it well, I think.

      But, can you at least agree that a system that was developed for the military be controlled by the military whilst we are at war? You may not agree with us going to war but can you at least agree that any disadvantage to the Iraqis in favor of Americans on the ground is an ok thing? If you're on a boat then bust out your astrolabe for the week or two that the war will be on. Is it that much of a hardship to ensure that Americans don't get blown to bits?

      disclaimer: I don't think this war is such a hot idea myself. But, its on now. As for french fries, I just had some. Deelish. And no I haven'
      t forgotten Lafayette.

      --
      - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    39. Re:Army's stuff by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 1
      The GPS signal is *very* hard to jam - it was designed to be so.
      While GPS may have all sorts of anti-jamming technology built in, the fact remains that it's a tiny signal by the time it gets to Earth: about -160 dBW (that's 10^-16 watts!). Even a fairly small wideband transmitter (like something running off a generator on the back of a truck) should be able to overwhelm GPS in a small area. This is probably the main problem with all the fancy new GPS-guided weapons: just park a truck with a jammer next to a presidential palace, power station, or whatever you want to protect. Instantly, all those JDAMs become iron bombs.
      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
    40. Re:Army's stuff by mfrank · · Score: 1

      GPS is a line-of-sight system and the satellites orbit at about 13,000 miles up. "Regional basis" is probably half the frickin' planet.

    41. Re:Army's stuff by mfrank · · Score: 1

      GPS was built by and for the American military, and for our allies' military.

      Do you think the US military is going to endanger soldier's lives just so some Euro geo-cacher can find their box of goodies more easily? Any system that relies exclusively on GPS is badly designed anyway; even our GPS guided bombs have inertial guidance backup systems.

    42. Re:Army's stuff by rnturn · · Score: 1
      ``...just park a truck with a jammer next to a presidential palace, power station, or whatever you want to protect.''

      I'll see your jamming truck and raise you an anti-radiation missle or two.

      I'd bet that the first thing that gets taken out in Iraq is just about anything emitting RF. Didn't the military recently warn journalists that any use of satellite uplinks might put them in harm's way.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    43. Re:Army's stuff by crizh · · Score: 1

      'Civilian users will hardly notice a difference.'

      I would, I occasionally drive a taxi for extra cash and trust me if my GPS were inaccurate to +/- 300m I'd lose money hand over fist.

      Our system has to accurately place cars inside zones, 75+ of them, many of much are a good deal smaller than 600m across. If that level of inaccuracy were introduced to the signal I could find myself jumping between zones (and losing my place in the queue for work) in a STATIONARY vehicle.

      I think I might 'notice' that.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    44. Re:Army's stuff by masq · · Score: 1

      If basic economic information like that is FLAMEBAIT, then I'd hate to see what you "Patriots" think of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld's dealings with Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, and Harken Oil.

      It's so sad that you mods actually believe the CIA, George W, and the rest of the US Government aren't just a *wee bit dirty*, despite decades worth of overwhelming evidence. Give me a break. Or did you forget it all?

      The bottom line is that corruption, whether by the Republicans, Democrats, or whoever, hurts everyone. Just because you "love George W" and you "believe in America" doesn't make it right, and the sooner you realize that your "favoritest president of all time" must be held accountable for his actions, the sooner we can safeguard America against a total loss of freedoms and a total fascist state.

      If you don't understand or agree with me, I don't care. Read a book or use google. You'll figure it out eventually. But not before you and your brown-nosing, turn-a-blind-eye attitude do irreperable harm to the country you claim to love.

    45. Re:Army's stuff by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      You would then find that the internal gyros would work just fine as a guidance system for the remaining mile or so...

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    46. Re:Army's stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The GPS signal is *very* hard to jam - it was designed to be so."

      It's actually not so hard to jam, even unintentionally. See our article in GPS World, which describes how we tracked down faulty Radio Shack (and other brands) amplified TV antennas that were wiping out GPS reception for miles around.

      http://www.gpsworld.com/gpsworld/article/article De tail.jsp?id=43404

    47. Re:Army's stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but that was more about controlling the media than "protecting innocent reporters."

    48. Re:Army's stuff by Thorgal · · Score: 1

      No, in case of signal loss JDAMs use intertial navigation to aim at the last point acquired by targetting system.

      --
      "Man in the Moon and other weird things" - wfmh.org.pl/thorgal/Moon/
    49. Re:Army's stuff by aiken_d · · Score: 1

      You mean, I can't go down to the local base and pick up my tank? Even though it was bought with *my* money? Bummer!

      -b

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    50. Re:Army's stuff by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Phased array antennas could stop this - if the GPS were designed with an antenna oriented skyward a truck on the ground would not cause nearly as much interference.

    51. Re:Army's stuff by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      And I hope the US would think twice about the risks of a large amount of satellite debris floating around in an orbit they might actually want to use themselves.

      Blowing up satellites owned by EU nations is obviously a step that would give any president pause. The US is actively researching technologies which could impair satellites without causing permanent harm. There are also possible ways to destroy a satellite without causing it to break up (use lasers to blind or burn optics on reconissance satellites, use high power RF to try to fry the transciever, etc). Obviously a cloud of BBs on a retrograde orbit is going to be a sure thing for taking out a satellite, but as you indicated there is already plenty of junk flying around out there.

      Assuming a satellite is undefended another fix might be a rugged mag-mounting booster rocket. You just hook your rocket onto the target and give it enough delta-V to send it hurling into the atmosphere. The satellite probably wouldn't be able to do much once it was latched onto, and most satellites wouldn't even be able to detect the approaching weapon. If the nation owning the satellite has continuous monitoring of the immediate area it could attempt to manuever out of the way, but as long as they're doing orbital gyrations the satellite is effectively out of commission for doing real work, and it has to run out of fuel eventually (which could render it useless even if it doesn't end up getting knocked out).

      The only reason that there aren't wars in space right now is that there haven't really been any major battles between nations dependant on the use of space technology. If Iraq owned a reconissance satellite you can bet the US would be looking to shoot it down about now.

    52. Re:Army's stuff by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      It requires the DGPS station to be fairly close to the handset as it needs to be using the same satellites - and therefore to be receiving the same information.

      I'd imagine that if you have three nodes on a wider area where each one only recieves data from one of the satellites in question, and the nodes have precisely synced clocks, you're also okay.

    53. Re:Army's stuff by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      100 meters should be close enough for navigation. I think the super-duper accuracy mode is used in GPS guided bombs or for tracking multi-million dollar assets across a battlefield.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    54. Re:Army's stuff by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      OK, I gotta jump on this one:

      If you are in a boat hundreds of miles away from land, will +-100M really make a difference? If you are navigating a shoal, 100M could cause a prob, but if they know GPS isn't accurate, they can use standard navigation. People navigated the oceans for hundreds(thousands?) of years before GPS.

      Agian, in a plane, 100M shouldn't matter. Unless you are talking about altitude. The altimeter in every plane should be calibrated at the airport before every takeoff.

      The basic American stance on GPS is that we paid for the research, we paid for the infrastructure, you are using the system because of our goodwill. If you don't like the terms of use, buy another product.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    55. Re:Army's stuff by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      What type of debris would an EMP leave? :)

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    56. Re:Army's stuff by fname · · Score: 1

      Yup, that's probably right. But the soldiers on the ground have to radio in the coordinates. So they need the accurate GPS.

    57. Re:Army's stuff by Keebler71 · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you do the trig you will see that even at GEO (~42000km) it takes at least three sats for global coverage (i.e about a third of the earth each). At MEO, where the GPS sats are, the coverage is substantially less, therefore "regional" denial is plausible.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    58. Re:Army's stuff by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Why are you using a guidance system for military weapons, to make money with your taxi?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    59. Re:Army's stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, they wouldn't want to deny service everywhere. But the could try implementing SA only on satellites within view of Iraq. If they employ SA only within certain segments of the orbit, they can still achieve the goal of denying GPS to Iraq, while leaving it on for everybody else. They could even shut off the civilian signals of enough satellites to deny the minimum satellite constellation (3 birds) being visible from Iraq, while providing normal performance outside the Persian Gulf region. More insidiously, they can provide a creeping SA inaccuracy to Iraqi GPS users--making it deliberately deceptive, to deliver enemy weapons and vehicles to other than their intended destination. Anyone who relies on their enemy to provide navigation aids is nuts! Oh, we're talking about Sodom Hussein...

    60. Re:Army's stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like everybody else, I already knew that the CIA etc was involved in drug sales (did you know that since we ousted the Taliban, Afghanistan's opium fields are growing again?), but I never thought to ask what they needed the money for. I just assumed the pigs at the top pocketed it, but using it on weaponry is just as plausible. Good post but sorry for the Flamebait. Free speech is not illegal here in America, but it certainly is discouraged if it goes against the majority view.

  4. Ouch by Apro+im · · Score: 2, Informative

    This may seriously affect my handy-dandy Honda navigation system built into my Odyssey - it already has trouble guessing which road I'm on when the roads are close together - imagine it thinking I'm a block away from where I really am.

    1. Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      imagine it thinking I'm a block away from where I really am.

      Imagine, you could end up fucking a girl at the right address but on the wrong street, thinking it was your girlfriend.

  5. Sanity checks.. by jkrise · · Score: 2, Insightful

    " Users depending on GPS systems may want to do sanity checks on any data "

    Which sane person would rely on GPS data for something even as trivial as navigation? Incidentally, how does one check GPS data? Against another GPS??

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Sanity checks.. by zCyl · · Score: 4, Funny

      Which sane person would rely on GPS data for something even as trivial as navigation?

      Have you tried navigating by the stars during the day lately? The blue room can be a big scary place.

    2. Re:Sanity checks.. by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      For your 2 questions:

      a) A sane person would rely on GPS because they may not be very good with compass and map, or they may have cordinates for something not marked on a map. When driving at speed the margin of error is negligible, and it enables you to navigate through featureless terrain such as desert playa which are impossible to use a map in.

      v)Well...I would walk to a point which I knew the exact location of and then do 10 or 15 GPS location checks to see what the margin of error was.

      Did you really not know these answers or am I just feeding a troll?

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    3. Re:Sanity checks.. by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      No, but you might use GPS for locational data for your other data collections. Most people who use GIS's use GPS data in one way or another. For instance, census collectors made heavy use of GPS durring the last set of door-knockings.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    4. Re:Sanity checks.. by jpellino · · Score: 4, Informative

      if you have a garmin unit (the one without the goofy cartoon guy planting flags) the EPE (estimated positioning error) is right on the satellite page.

      Garmin is a bit generous with the calculation for this number (for a discussion, you could check out gpsy.com) but in a clear area the SA changes it from about 20 ft to about 100 feet.

      Here's a graph of when SA got turned off two years ago -

      http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/FGCS/info/sans_SA/world/ am mn.gif

      Look for that to reverse.

      And they prolly need to turn it off globally - because they think there's a good chance bad people will target things all over the world now that we'll be fighting. Plus the last thing they need right now is a bunch of people making sure the army works and your lexus dongles work.

      War is hell. Buy a map. Your GPS will still get you close enough to throw a line to someone if they need rescue.

      --
      "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    5. Re:Sanity checks.. by Alioth · · Score: 1

      For IFR aviation use, it is sanity checked using RAIM (Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring). A RAIM receiver checks GPS values against known values from other sources (such as altitude), and if the GPS coordinates disagree by more than a certain amount, it 'flags' the course deviation indicator to tell the pilot that the GPS signal is bad.

      Handheld units of course have no such checks.

      When navigating under visual flight rules, it's trivially easy to manually monitor your GPS - you continue to use the map, compass and stopwatch at the same time. With a little practise, visual navigation from the air in most parts of the world isn't that hard.

    6. Re:Sanity checks.. by Technician · · Score: 1

      Actualy I like mine to find my favorite fishing spot. Head out of the mouth of the Columbia River and go West about 200 miles. There are some small banks with great tuna. They are not very big and the street map won't get you there. Don't depend on the sun, moon, and stars. Ever seen satelite photos of the incomming storms?
      Not all places worth going to have well marked roads.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    7. Re:Sanity checks.. by chiph · · Score: 2, Funny

      In-car navigation system: $1800
      Handheld GPS: $200
      Paper map: $5

      Again, the dead-tree edition proves to have hidden advantages, such as never needing batteries, not breaking when you drop it, and having consistent results during wartime.

      Chip H.

    8. Re:Sanity checks.. by mlazareff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or during full night either, except using an artificial horizon on your sextant (bubble sextant), requires a big ship's stability.

      "Night" sights for celestial navigation are usually made when the sun is some (5~10) degrees under the horizon, so that both the stars and the horizon line are visible. This allows (with ex. 3 stars) a full position to be determined in a few minutes.

      The moon may also be used, but precision is usually bad, because of unprecise (complex and rapidly evolving) ephemerids (almanac) and raised horizon (glare) under the moon at night.

      By day, if both the ship's and sea current's course / speed are steady, the classical method of the running fix allows the ship's position and course to be determined using only sun sightings.

      This may be performed (provided that sun and horizon are clearly visible) using only a precise timepiece, a sextant and special "sight reduction" tables. The latter item is preferably replaced with a programmable calculator, which will run for tens of hours on a single set of batteries, although the tables should be on board and understood.

      This old technique is not as fast or as precise as the GPS, and requires a clear sky, but does not depend on the ship's power supply or on the fast-emptying batteries of a hand-held GPS unit, and because of this is mandatory for navigation on Class 1 yachts (allowed on the high seas).

      This follows the sailors' habit of never discarding old-but-working methods, especially if they are more robust than new-fangled ones.

    9. Re:Sanity checks.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have GPS in my airplane. When it starts it tells me where I am and asks me to confirm.

      Any change to the accuracy of GPS in the US would be a bad thing. Most airports have GPS instrument approaches. Even general aviation aircraft (like mine) have GPS certified for instrument approaches. One would hope if something like this happens the military would inform the FAA who could then issue notices to pilots.

    10. Re:Sanity checks.. by djrogers · · Score: 1

      Boy, it's a good thing Galileo, Magellan, and Columbus all had their trusty GPS systems available back then, isn't it?

      --
      Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
    11. Re:Sanity checks.. by zCyl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Boy, it's a good thing Galileo, Magellan, and Columbus all had their trusty GPS systems available back then, isn't it?

      Columbus thought he landed in India.

    12. Re:Sanity checks.. by rhaig · · Score: 1

      if said sane person isn't very good with a map and compass, what the hell are they doing trying to navigate across desert playa? (or anything other than your basic roads & rec GPS mapset)

      if you want to know how to navigate, find your local BSA Scout Shop. Go buy an Orienteering Merit Badge Book. I think the price has gone up to $3.25. take the change from your couch. while your there, spend $10 on a nice compass. Then go buy a nice usgs sectional map, and learn how it works.

      If you have coords for something that isn't marked on a map, read the merit badge book you just bought. It will tell you how to find those coords on your map. Than use your pencil (you do have a pencil don't you?) and it's marked on the map.

      as for the accuracy check. most modern GPS systems will tell you how far off they think they are. And while it's usually right. The fixed position check is a good one. Surveying markers are good places to start with. Also a nice feature of most modern GPS's is point averaging. You can just let in run for a minute or two and it will average all it's readings. (doesn't mean it's more accurate, but when doing a check against a known point, it's not a bad way to go)

      --
      "We are not tolerant people. We prefer drastically effective solutions"
  6. Good stuff by sokkelih · · Score: 2, Funny

    This means that my grand dad can get lost in forrest while picking up mushrooms. I can get my legacy faster. :)

    1. Re:Good stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if your grandfather's legacy to you was some really kick-ass mushrooms? :(

    2. Re:Good stuff by ramzak2k · · Score: 1, Funny

      hey shonny, i heard ya .. haw haw.
      I am sending your grandma to get the mushrooms today.

      --

      Siggy Say, Siggy Do
  7. What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by pork_spies · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Would be interesting to know what the EU would do with Gallileo at this moment in time. I dare say they would follow the US lead, I suppose...

    1. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by jeremyp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt it since a lot of the European countries are not enthusiastic about a war and France in particular is dead against it. France is the main driver behind the European space effort.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    2. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by slashtom.org · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Not a chance! Does it look like France and Germany are doing what the US tell them.

      But what chance has the EU got of getting Gallileo working in the next decade. Their current military project, the Eurofighter is years behind and billions over budget.

    3. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by LazySlacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Isn't 'military project' and 'over budget and late' a tautology?

    4. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      Would be interesting to know what the EU would do with Gallileo at this moment in time. I dare say they would follow the US lead, I suppose...

      It would depend on whether the British or the French has the presidency at the time. It if was the Brits, they would announce to the world via the BBC that they wre terribly sorry, but Gallileo won't be fully accurate on civilian receivers, sorry about that chaps, see you next week for tea and cricket, jolly good. The French would just immediately try to sell Iraq some military Gallileo receivers.

    5. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2, Interesting

      a lot of euopean countries? name them. I can show you a map that has France, Gremany, Belgum, denmark, norway, sewden,greece, and finland as being anti-this war. the rest of europe is on our side. more than 2 times the amount against the war are for the war.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    6. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      I am sure the EU councel would have control, and by the time the system is up and running, the eastern europeans will be in the EU and that will give us more tan 2/3s the votes on the councel favouring the US.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    7. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by rockus · · Score: 1
      Not at all.

      Galileo is designed and will be operated as a Civilian system with additional features. Some of these features are that you can rely not only the accuracy of data but also on their integrity. The model is such that you can buy the guarantee that the system will work and delivers correct data. As there is no single military body involved, there won't be any degradation of the signal (esp. since such a functionality isn't built int in the first place).

      The whole concept and orientation of the two systems (GPS and Galileo; Glonass doesn't really count) is completely different, the one a military system turned public, the other a public-private system useable by anyone with additional services depending on contract.

      So, no, there wouldn't be any degradation would Galileo be operational.

      And I don't even touch on the political aspects of all that...

    8. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by cyberkreiger · · Score: 1, Troll

      Is it this map?

      --
      Stumbling in the dark
      I hear slavering of jaws
      Eaten by a grue.
    9. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by crizh · · Score: 1

      Who's military hardware did we face in the Falklands?

      It sure wasn't Argentina that made the Exocet that sank HMS Sheffield.

      OTOH it was us selling Iraq the parts for its dumb supergun...

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    10. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by aallan · · Score: 1

      ...a lot of euopean countries? name them.

      Britain. The current opinion polls put 65% to 70% of the population against the war. Yesterday the government managed to get the approval of Parliment to send the troops in, but only after the biggest backbench revolt in living memory.

      I don't know what CNN is telling you guys, but you're basically on your own, if the war doesn't go well (i.e. its over before teatime) the British government stands a fair chance of falling.

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    11. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      tehy quoted a guardian poll....that is a london rag. go get a copy

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    12. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      and 80 members of the labor party voted against blair, so I do not think he is in that much danger unless this goes badly, and if it does, no leader will be safe, not even Bush.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    13. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      what is your point?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    14. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Very good. :-) I like it. More and more of Yurop seems to be turning into the commies that we have to bomb though. Real shame that one of our amusment parks will get destroyed.

      I have to agree with your parent comment though.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    15. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by aallan · · Score: 1

      ...and 80 members of the labor party voted against blair, so I do not think he is in that much danger unless this goes badly, and if it does, no leader will be safe, not even Bush.

      I don't know where you got your numbers, but they're wrong. 139 Labour MPs rebelled against the government's line and supported the amendment, 15 Tory MPs also defied their leadership by voting against the government's policy. All 53 Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the government - in line with their leadership's position.

      See the BBC story for a more realistic slant on whats going on here. A summary last nights Common's debate is also avialable, alnog with a breakdown of exactly how all the MPs voted.

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    16. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by crizh · · Score: 1

      My point is that France tends to do whatever it pleases regardless of the opinion of the EU or anyone else for that matter.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    17. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      hmm..ok, I guess my numbers on the vote were wrong, but the poll is not.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    18. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by pork_spies · · Score: 1

      The one leader is on a even stickier wicket than Balir is one Saddam Hussein. Given Saddam is a murdering bastard I'll back Blair no matter how tough it gets.

    19. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 1
      The Guardian isn't a london rag, it's a national paper.


      Responding to your other comments, Blair is in a lot of trouble. Two prominent members of his cabinet have resigned, and he is serious trouble with the polls. Bearing in mind that the anti-war march in london was the biggest protest in the (long) history of the UK, and that the vote last night was the biggest rebellion in living memory, the only reason Blair is still secure is that the main opposition party support the war too.

    20. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      ok.....but that does not help them if they want power in the EU.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    21. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      Cook was going to leave anyway, he was pissed off at blair, as for your anti-war sentament stuff, you are looking at old data. look at the guardian poll....as for my rag comment, ok, it is a national UK paper, but they are no where near the objectivity of BBC.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    22. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 1
      Well there's a comment piece on the bbc website here which says "He is taking action against the will of the UN, the British public, his party and a large swathe of global opinion" and "Mr Blair's leadership has never been so uncertain as it now is."


      It's not really a question of objectivity - the polls have consistently shown that the british are against the war, and we have had the biggest public protest ever, as well as the biggest Commons rebellion ever. I am actually against the war, but what I'm more against is misinformation about the level of support Blair has. Britain has never before gone to war with less support, and that should alarm people.

    23. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by (IQ)_Morten · · Score: 1

      Yesterday morning, Denmark stated their full support for the war.One submarine, and another ship has been sent to the gulf. Our PM even got paint poured over him

      --
      At the end of the world, There will be no more dolphins
    24. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should not construct your world-view from PR-releases from the US goverment, or CNN news. (AFAIK, not even they are stating such thing, only suggerating it. Otherwise, feel free to delusion me with a link)

      Others take a different view, 2.
      The European goverments supporting the US-American move do not have the support of the public opinion on that matter. Especially, not in the "new Europe". Denmarks goverment can acutally be added to that list too,. According to these polls, the strongest support is to be found in the UK, with 67% opposing a war without UN backing. The list is tailed by Germany (87%) and the "new Europe" (some ~70% opposing it even with UN backing)

      Japan is in a similar position. The goverment is backing the US position, but has not the public support for it. Prime Minister Koizumi has his own opinion on that matter.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    25. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      a lot of euopean countries? name them. I can show you a map that has France, Gremany, Belgum, denmark, norway, sewden,greece, and finland as being anti-this war. the rest of europe is on our side. more than 2 times the amount against the war are for the war.

      So every economic powerhouse in Europe besides England and Ireland are against the war. (I thought Russia - also a European nation - was against the war, too.) But the countries still trying to rebuild from the Cold War are on our side - woo hoo.

    26. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by troc · · Score: 1

      Flamebait?

      I pointed out a fact ... that the system is commercial not military and then made, what I thought was, a little joke. Hence the ";)"

      *shrug*

      Whenever I DO write some attempted flamebait it gets modded as funny :( My funny stuff get's modded as insightful and my insightful stuff gets modded as space cowboy......! :) Ah well.

      Bah, It's just not fair. My .sig is working then :)

      Troc.

      --
      Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
    27. Re:What about Gallileo (if it was operative) by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Denmark is in the coalition of the winning (oops, willing). They've donated medical officers to help deal with possible chemical/biological weapon attacks.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  8. What about people in US by LinuxMacWin · · Score: 1

    The article is German centric and talks about effect on people in Germany !! Any idean if it will impact US GPS systems?

    1. Re:What about people in US by parsnip_soup · · Score: 1

      I believe it has already been stated above that it is unlikely to affect gps readings in the US, since the area of affect is regionalised, and GPS requires line of site between satelite/reciever, hence it's unlikely any of the affected satelites around the middle east would be used in calculating locations on the other side of the world, ie, the US.

    2. Re:What about people in US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I don't remember wrong, the GPS satellites are in Middle Earth Orbit (MEO), which means that they actually go around the globe once in a while. They are not "fixed" in the same positions as the geostationary communication satellites. This means that the satellites used in the middle east are used in the US too.

      If the US military makes a regional decrease in accuracy, they have to make the satellites turn the effect on and off periodically. They would have to turn it on when the satellites enter the line-of-sight-to-Iraq area, and turn it off when they leave it.

    3. Re:What about people in US by parsnip_soup · · Score: 1

      It's certainly viable, I don't think the US would disrupt a service such that it would affect services such as its own emergency services.

    4. Re:What about people in US by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "If I don't remember wrong, the GPS satellites are in Middle Earth Orbit (MEO),"

      So this degrading of accuracy will affect the Hobbits, elves, dwarves and orcs? How will Frodo know where to go with the Ring...

  9. Wow by koh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...by having the satellites deliberately and randomly return inaccurate information on where they are.

    Isn't that supposed to be terrorism ? ;)

    --
    Karma cannot be described by words alone.
    1. Re:Wow by bluelip · · Score: 1

      No, it's called protecting our troops and those of our allies.

      --

      Yep, I never spell check.
      More incorrect spellings can be found he
    2. Re:Wow by los+furtive · · Score: 1

      No, it's called protecting our troops and those of our allies.

      Uh, those would be your troops, not mine.

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    3. Re:Wow by Didion+Sprague · · Score: 0

      Nah, he's from Canada. Home of Bob and Doug MacKenzie.

    4. Re:Wow by bluelip · · Score: 1

      ;)

      Thanks, I forgot about that one.

      --

      Yep, I never spell check.
      More incorrect spellings can be found he
    5. Re:Wow by Frodo420024 · · Score: 1
      ...by having the satellites deliberately and randomly return inaccurate information on where they are.

      Isn't that supposed to be terrorism ? ;)

      Not when you're the Good Guys (*Chough*) :)

      --
      I'm in a Unix state of mind.
    6. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot.

      There is NO PROOF or even reason that saddam sponsors global terrorism. There isn't even any conclusive proof that al-qaeda purpetrated the WTC attacks.

      And it is bloody shortsighted and moronic to:
      a) Believe everything force-fed you by the media, and the so called 'responsible' leadership.
      b) Believe that the tiny amount of circumstancial evidence could not have been exagerated or faked. (As has been repeatedly demonstrated).

      Finally. THE USA is responsible for putting Saddam into power so your damned 'you gave him weapons' idiocy is so hypocritical its amazing.

      People like you are going to tbe the death of society, you're the best friends of assholes in power the world over. And if you think that Saddam is somehow worse than Bush? I'm sorry to have to tell you that Bush has ALREADY been responsible for MORE deaths and suffering (not to mention human rights violations) than Saddam, and the toll is about to rise sharply.

      Take some downtrodden people, blow some of them randomly up, destroy all their buildings, then enslave them and their ancestors to a massive debt. Its so humane, that's why I support the war of course. I love the rebuilding line... Not mentioning that this will be in the form of loans of course..

      Stupid redneck idiot, look past your own self-interests and actually care about what you are talking about.

      If Bush wanted to save the innocents in Iraq then don't start a war, assassinate Saddam. Its not that difficult a choice and has the following advantages:
      a) Civilian deaths are microscopic compared to a war.
      b) It is over very very quickly.
      c) Its cheaper.
      d) Its more humanitarian.

      It may be illegal, but so is (under international law) the war, so what does he care? Plus it has deniability, pretend its freedom fighters...

      You are like a damned parrot: War is the only solution, here Bush/(anyone on TV), let me bend over for your logic.

    7. Re:Wow by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      Oh, you're from one of those countries that _SUPPORTS_ terrorism?

      The new biological weapon of choice for the apprentice terrorist: a nice runny camembert!

    8. Re:Wow by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      It may be illegal, but so is (under international law) the war, so what does he care? Plus it has deniability, pretend its french fighters...

      But the French are against the war!

    9. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The assanation bit is what I don't get. As you say it is far quicker, cleaner, cheaper etc. Legality is not something that concerns bush, I can't understand why they don't just kill saddam(and any supporters who may take his place). Of course that doesn't gat you actual control of the Oi .. Ahh I think i see why war is needed now.

      I think I see another issue as well. Setting a precedent for convential war is not to bad, no-one else has the means to wage convential war against the USA (at least on their own), but setting a precedent for assasination would legitamise assasinating Bush and his advisors. Of being a moron he's probably forgetting that amongst the enemies he makes some will do that anyway - If the only way to strike back is assasins/terrorists then it will happen, and who can blame them. If some madman with weapons of mass destrtuction started imposing his will on my country in the same way as happens in the mid/far-east then I would also do what these 'terrorists' do - strike back in the only way possible to them.

    10. Re:Wow by los+furtive · · Score: 1

      Oh, you're from one of those countries that _SUPPORTS_ terrorism?

      No, I'm from one of those countries that rejects extremism.

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    11. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 meters or 100 meters accuracy. Close enough when your launching bio weapons or nukes.

    12. Re:Wow by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Wow, assasinate Saddam. I wonder why nobody's thought of that?

      Any volunteers? Anyone want to go into Iraq and shoot Saddam? Anyone? (cut to sound of chirping crickets).

      Saddam kills anyone who remotely threatens him. Everyone near him has known, for the last twelve years, that if he knocks off Saddam, he'll be the US's newest bestest bud for the rest of his life, and he gets to own Iraq. But still it hasn't happened. Evidently, people just don't seem to enjoy seeing their children tortured to death and their wife raped to death before they themselves get tortured to death. Go figure.

      Well, it's not too late for someone to go in and kill Kim Ill Sung II. Should be a piece of cake.

    13. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CIA already tried to assassinate him in 1996. Didn't work. See this timeline for more info.

    14. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, with all the rhetoric being spouted, I'm sure that there is some USA goverment agency who has people (on official lists or not) who could be asked to go and take him out.

      Its not like there aren't any covert ops specialists in the army, you know, professionals in that field that might be able to do something.

      Interesting thing, I never mentioned use people inside Iraq, use your own specialists, hence I'd like to see Saddam go to the states and rape and torture their family... If that does happen, well then the states is screwed, cause anyone can go anywhere and do anything.

      I said that the 'president' had complete deniability, it could be put on freedom fighters (as cover idiot) that they did it, not a US covert ops team.

      Use your damned brain.

  10. What about last time? by kEnder242 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Last time they turned off the S/A during the war, cheaper that way using off the shelf gps.

    You can always have a radio broadcasting the offsets from a known location to compensate.

    --
    my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
    1. Re:What about last time? by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There was a big discussion on one of the GPS newsgroups about this very fact - at the time of the last gulf war, civillian GPS units were cheaper, more plentiful, and had more features that the troops wanted/required than the more cumbersome military GPS units.

      One of the soldiers was talking about it in the group and basically said the military units were limited to showing long/lat and doing goto-waypoint distance/direction operations. At the same time, civillian units had mapping capabilities, easy to use graphic displays, and were about 1/2 the size.

      As other posters have said, it's possible to adjust the SA signal geographically, so they could degrade the signal in the middle east without changing anything in north america. This is the first step that seems logical.

      Alternately, they could leave SA off alltogether, and just jam the GPS signal in the area that they are performing operations - the GPS signal is relatively weak and an ECM aircraft could easily block hundreds of miles of GPS reception while flying out of range of ground-based weaponry.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    2. Re:What about last time? by Frodo420024 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Alternately, they could leave SA off alltogether, and just jam the GPS signal in the area that they are performing operations - the GPS signal is relatively weak and an ECM aircraft could easily block hundreds of miles of GPS reception while flying out of range of ground-based weaponry.

      No way would they jam the signal, they want to use GPS themselves.

      --
      I'm in a Unix state of mind.
    3. Re:What about last time? by guile*fr · · Score: 1

      At the same time, civillian units had mapping capabilities, easy to use graphic displays, and were about 1/2 the size.
      but they didnt stop 7.65 amnos and didnt color matched with the hummer & combat suit. :)

    4. Re:What about last time? by varjag · · Score: 1

      At the same time, civillian units had mapping capabilities, easy to use graphic displays, and were about 1/2 the size.

      Were they able to sustain EMI of a nuclear bomb detonation? Parachute landing? A dip into mud? Continious vibration? An owner with IQ of 60?

      There are reasons that all military equipment looks so dumb and rugged.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
    5. Re:What about last time? by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      Well, by jam the signal, I'm referring to civillian GPS units which can easily be jammed and still leave military units (which operate on a wider reception bandwidth) available.

      It's not an ideal solution as many soldiers have civillian GPS units for use themselves, but I suppose it could be used if necessary for short, critical operations.

      To be honest though, Iraq's military is so inferior to anything being thrown at it, I doubt that they'd have any advantage if they had perfectly accurate GPS units anyway...

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    6. Re:What about last time? by Bananenrepublik · · Score: 1

      it's possible to adjust the SA signal geographically, so they could degrade the signal in the middle east without changing anything in north america. This is the first step that seems logical.

      Why? Aren't the terrorists more likely to strike in the US than in Iraq? And only terrorists need GPS, anyway.

    7. Re:What about last time? by Alastor187 · · Score: 1

      ...and were about 1/2 the size. I heard a speech last year from a fellow Rockwell Collins employee. One the stories he mentioned was about a reporter asking him why the GPS Units were so large and bulky. He said "We could make them a fraction of the size without a problem, but what we found is that many of the soldiers are using the units to pound tent stakes into the ground." Alastor

    8. Re:What about last time? by T5 · · Score: 1

      With GPS guided munitions, and most ground troops dependent on GPS for navigation, especially in sandstorms, burning oil fields, etc., with poor visibility, the last thing you want to do it jam GPS signals over a hot zone.

    9. Re:What about last time? by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      > it's possible to adjust the SA signal geographically, so they could
      > degrade the signal in the middle east without changing anything in
      > north america. This is the first step that seems logical.

      Wrong way round I think?! They probably don't care about the accuracy of GPS in the middle east - everyone over there has military GPS systems that are unaffected by it. They presumably want to slew off the accuracy in the US so that GPS guided bombs aimed at US targets are thrown off slightly. Having said that - that would only be useful against bombs designed to knock out small buildings/bridges etc as throwing a chemical weapon off course by 80m wouldn't make any useful difference whatsoever.

      Nick...

  11. doubt if it will make any real difference by guybarr · · Score: 4, Interesting


    My guess is that for high-precision locations, the Iraqis already measured them with high accuracy, while for, say, infantry navigation all you really need is 100m accuracy. (Even less for armored forces, of cource)

    And given the air threat, I also doubt their forces will change their localtions too much; if it's camouflaged enough to survive the initial attacks, it will probably stay put.

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.
    1. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by GMontag · · Score: 1

      Have things changed these days for the worst?

      In the USian Army we required 100m accuracy for Armor, 10m accuracy for Infantry/dismounted folks. All of the instruction had these tolerances.

    2. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by trikberg · · Score: 1

      Mobile field artillery needs as good precision as possible. If you rely on GPS and fire dozens of huge grenades (or unguided rockets) hundreds of meters off the target, you'll probably wipe out more friendly forces than enemies.

      If you think it is not hard, consider this: The howitzers and cannons move in a pretty much featureless landscape. Before shooting they are stabilized using shovels and sledgehammers, not exactly precision tools. You use a barrel of a few meters to aim a grenade that flies for 10-50 kilometers. If you mess up the settings by a few centimeters, the aim will be off by a lot in the other end. There's some fancy optics and a lot of mathematics involved to get it right.

      I should know since I've fired maybe a hundred grenades using a 122mm field howitzer, very similar to the models used by Iraq: Finland uses some Soviet designs with small mods.

      --
      This post is free (as in cheese in a mousetrap).
    3. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by guybarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the USian Army we required 100m accuracy for Armor, 10m accuracy for Infantry/dismounted folks. All of the instruction had these tolerances.

      Yes, but did you need these tolerences ? For infantry navigation, you usually don't (Except for some extremely bad terrain types, an infantry officer/noncom who loses himself in an 100mX100m sized square won't do any good anyhow ...).

      For precise indirect fire, you do, but then again, my guess is that the Iraqi artillery (both light and heavy) positions are already very well measured.

      The US army doctrine probably requires these accuracies simply because they can get it relatively cheaply. Nothing wrong with that; in fact that's the correct thing to do. But that does not mean an army can't fight well with less accurate equipment.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    4. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by guybarr · · Score: 1

      Mobile field artillery needs as good precision as possible. If you rely on GPS and fire dozens of huge grenades (or unguided rockets) hundreds of meters off the target, you'll probably wipe out more friendly forces than enemies.

      Not completely true, see next section. And I was definately reffering to camouflaged non mobile artillery, assuming that the mobile ones will get wiped out.

      If you think it is not hard, consider this: ... If you mess up the settings by a few centimeters, the aim will be off by a lot in the other end.

      The important thing is the accuracy in the firing angles , not so much as the accuracy in the position of the tool itself. This can be overcome in simple ways w/o a GPS.

      There's some fancy optics and a lot of mathematics involved to get it right.

      Not so fancy math, though. A bit of geodesics and some really simple balistics. Effects of air-resistance and meteorology are the tougher parts, IMHO.

      I should know since I've fired maybe a hundred grenades using a 122mm field howitzer, very similar to the models used by Iraq:

      I've also been in the artillery. Though probably not the same army.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    5. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      I doubt that the Iraqi forces even use/rely on GPS at all. The US Army's conceit here is that the enemy is also dependant on high-tech toys. Instead, the Iraqis may let the invaders roam the countryside, and ambush them in the towns and cities.

      As Somalia showed, sometimes it pays to use antique radios and equipment so out-of-date that the Americans no longer have any equipment that can intercept or jam. And all of the concern about Saddam's "smoke trenches" is focused on how it's supposed to foil smart bombs, whereas it's more likely to rob house-to-house fighters the chance to spot ambushes from afar. Empty chemrounds may be fired to keep Americans nervous and in full MOPP gear (extremely uncomfortable in the desert, and could cause dehydration by sweating). Nothing that requires GPS accuracy.

      Sure America has a decisive military advantage, if the enemy fights fairly.

    6. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by sql*kitten · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My guess is that for high-precision locations, the Iraqis already measured them with high accuracy, while for, say, infantry navigation all you really need is 100m accuracy. (Even less for armored forces, of cource)

      That's an awfully big assumption. Consider the terrain in southern Iraq. A few tens of metres (or less) is the difference between fording a river with your tank, and getting bogged down in marshland and having to sit and wait for a recovery vehicle, and all the while vulnerable to air attack. Iraq isn't all desert as many people think; a lot of it is quite wet because of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The inhabitants of southern Iraq are often known as the "Marsh Arabs" for this reason. Even worse, few metres can mean the difference between a clear lane through a minefield, and straying into an uncleared area. Tanks may look clumsy, but they still require precision handling.

    7. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by Chainsaw · · Score: 1
      Sure America has a decisive military advantage, if the enemy fights fairly.

      So... When did a fair fight mean that you could not use smart tactics and your own knowledge of the local terrain to outsmart a better armed foe?

      --
      War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
    8. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot shoot ordinary artillery (you know, shells) with an error in navigation in the order of 100m. The error must be an order of magnitude less (10m should be acceptable if you have a good knowledge of direction; i.e. north with a precision of fractions of a degree).

    9. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by guybarr · · Score: 1

      Consider the terrain in southern Iraq. A few tens of metres (or less) is the difference between fording a river with your tank, and getting bogged down in marshland

      In such a terrain, armored forces are much less effective anyway. AFAIK, deploying tanks in a marshland is a problematic decision.

      ... Even worse, few metres can mean the difference between a clear lane through a minefield, and straying into an uncleared area

      Again, I was not in the US army, but AFAIK, when combat-engineers create a clear-lane, they mark the cleared teritory well. This means that no tank-commander should rely on GPS for avoiding minefields. Perhaps the US doctrine is different.

      Tanks may look clumsy, but they still require precision handling.

      Agreed, but precision handling does not neccessarily mean navigating relying on military GPS's precision.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    10. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by GMontag · · Score: 1

      Well, yea, finding a road junction or whatever did not really require extreme accuracy. It may have been cheaper then as we used paper maps (after they are shot they still work).

      Lots of it had to do with diagraming the positions of one's troops too, as a tank is a little bigger than an infantry fireteam.

      As for field artillery, they use much higher tolerances, using mils instead of degrees and such.

    11. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      In such a terrain, armored forces are much less effective anyway. AFAIK, deploying tanks in a marshland is a problematic decision.

      I believe (altho' I'm no expert in Middle Eastern geography) that in order to get to Baghdad from Kuwait without driving through Saudi Arabia, you have to go past Basra, which is marshy. There are many delta and tributaries before the Gulf itself.

      Again, I was not in the US army, but AFAIK, when combat-engineers create a clear-lane, they mark the cleared teritory well. This means that no tank-commander should rely on GPS for avoiding minefields. Perhaps the US doctrine is different.

      I'd hope so - when I was a Cadet in the early 90s we used chemical glowsticks. I don't know how the regular Army does it these days.

    12. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      For precise indirect fire, you do, but then again, my guess is that the Iraqi artillery (both light and heavy) positions are already very well measured.

      I used to serve in the (Swedish) artillery and I would like to comment on this. While the Iraqis probably measured many positions for their artillery, modern battles move quickly and they will probably have to regroup in places that they have not measured beforehand.

      Of course, that is if they fire at all. I have heard that during the first Gulf War, they hardly did because of American localization radars. These devices can pinpoint the exact location of an enemy artillery unit shortly after it has fired, and then use their own artillery. In other words, Iraqi artillery commanders knew that they would be destroyed minutes after they fired.

      As for accuracy,it should be noted that one or a few hundred meters is the typical accuracy of an artillery system. This means that using a distorted GPS with similar accuracy is bad but not completely impossible. You can no longer count on hitting with the first barrage, but have to use observers to give direction for a second. Of course, there are other ways than GPS to determine your position exactly, but none that is so quick.

      Tor

    13. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      assuming, of course, that you get to fire a second barrage. The counter-battery fire will make that a difficult task.

    14. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by T-Ranger · · Score: 1
      Perhaps. But think about this question: When were those maps made? With what surveying technology? Rivers and sand dunes and what not also change location, albeit slowly. Its quite likely that your handheald GPS, even one wacked too ~100m resolution is more accurate then your maps.

      Your using your eyes when driving a tank accross a river, or a mine field. And if your driving accross a minefield, your doing it beteween a nice row of flags that have been put out by hand, by people who have walked the path on foot with metal dectors....

    15. Re:doubt if it will make any real difference by brocheck · · Score: 1

      Thats why you have a guy who sits in the driver's seat of the tank and is like 'Woah, we better not drive through that marshland.'

      --

      suddenly I feel very tired

  12. What about tankers, ships and harbors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do they really know how much a captain depends on GPS these days, especially when it comes to passing in and out of harbors? I hope this won't wreck another tanker somewhere.

    1. Re:What about tankers, ships and harbors? by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 5, Informative
      This is why all harbours have pilot boats that deliver a helmsman who knows that harbour (he is their employee) to guide large tankers etc in.

      Small boats franky should not be on the water if they cannot stay the right side of a clearly marked beacon. This is equivelent to saying "I have no GPS, how will I know what side of the road to drive on".

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    2. Re:What about tankers, ships and harbors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, what are tankers doing using a system which can and will obviously be degraded from time to time. That was a dumb choice. Then again, the whole point of the way is to keep the tankers full of fuel, so I'm sure if this is a problem then its one that's been thought of.

    3. Re:What about tankers, ships and harbors? by jointm1k · · Score: 1

      I don't think you have to worry about that. Tankers are even bigger then the accuracy of the public signal (100 meters). Besides, even a 300 square meter area in the ocean is like a poststamp to us. Especially for those big ships like oil tankers.

      --
      You know it makes sense, a little reminder from jointm1k.
    4. Re:What about tankers, ships and harbors? by stoney27 · · Score: 1

      Large ships have differential GPS units where the harbor masters broad cast a error correcting signal which gives the ships very good accuracy. This is the same technique used by surveyors.

      -S

      --

      It is said that a child learns wisdom from the parent,
      but the truly wise parent learns joy from the child
    5. Re:What about tankers, ships and harbors? by yourruinreverse · · Score: 1

      That's easy: There's radio beacons in ALL major harbours they can use to pinpoint their position and track a path all the way to the dock, there's human guidance, both on board, using tow boats and by radio, there's radar to check for ships in their immediate vicinity, and all those methods are much more reliable than GPS.

      Remember that GPS only gives you a position, whereas many harbours also feature tides and other strong currents, depths, visual beacons, a lot of ship movements, traffic control, and so on. There's no way you could guide yourself into a large seaport safely with only a GPS system and no external help.

      --
      JeR
    6. Re:What about tankers, ships and harbors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the pilot is almost useless. The real work is done by the crew of the tug boats. The pilot just goes along for the ride and collects the pay.

  13. There is no evidence of the claim by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me understand this, the head of a German Autoclub says the U.S. military MAY, I repeat MAY, degrade GPS accuracy. No evidence. Just pure conjecture. Consider that GPS has woven itself into our lives. How, it arguably supports critical functions. I strongly doubt that they will do this. While I understand the world's fears concerning GPS because it is run by the military, I put this article in with all FUD.

    1. Re:There is no evidence of the claim by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yes except the US Military owns the satellites and basically lets everyone else use them so they're not just a waste of space (pun intended.) Also worth noting is that they can do this locally, so basically the accurracy would probably only decrease (if it does at all) in the areas in and around Iraq. I doubt the US or western Europe will be affected at all.

    2. Re:There is no evidence of the claim by slashtom.org · · Score: 1
      They may take the view that making GPS more inaccurate may hinder a terrorist attack aimed at a specific target.

      If they have advance knowledge of an attack, then they may make GPS inaccurate for just a particular area of US/Europe.

    3. Re:There is no evidence of the claim by Apro+im · · Score: 1

      Up until 3-4 years ago, they did do this - so there are few questions as to their willingness.

    4. Re:There is no evidence of the claim by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And then planes will start hitting the tarmac late or early or hitting other things.....they JUST can't do this unplanned. Also, did you think that they terrorists needed a GPS to find the WTC? No they did not. Also, what makes you think that they can't figure out the code or obtain US military hardware?

      --

      Gorkman

    5. Re:There is no evidence of the claim by GMontag · · Score: 1

      Those poor human shields!

      Now, if they rent their busses in Germany and drive to Baghdad they may end up shielding military units by accident!

    6. Re:There is no evidence of the claim by slashtom.org · · Score: 1
      GPS could prove quite useful in locating military bases, and other important targets accuratly for someone planning to attack them. Things that are not so obvious as the WTC was.

      As for the military codes, we shall just have to rely on the competance of the US military on that point. Which of course is not that great, as first gulf war the US killed more British soldiers that the Iraqis did.

    7. Re:There is no evidence of the claim by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      It was 1996, and it was designed to do so, has nothing to do with "willingness".

    8. Re:There is no evidence of the claim by walt-sjc · · Score: 0

      Because GPS looses some accuracy pilots will forget how to fly and start crashing into things? WTF? When you are flying 200MPH, the accuracy loss is insignificant. GPS is only used as a general guide anyway. Pilots still use their other instruments, other radio beacons, and Eyes. If they don't feel that they can land safely (due to fog or whatever) they won't land. This happens ANYWAY even when GPS is working fine.

    9. Re:There is no evidence of the claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this has already happened before in my area (close to Kosovo/Serbia etc) during the US airstrikes. It's not speculation. Maybe this time we won't be affected (Iraq is much farther) but maybe we will. Quite possibly the satellites that are over US or EU ground won't be manipulated because they do not have a tactical importance in those operations.

    10. Re:There is no evidence of the claim by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      We dont need anyone to say it. The US Military has always reserved the right to reduce the accuracy of the GPS system. They have always maintained this technical capability to reduce the accuracy to everyone in the world but the US Military.

      I though this point was understood by everyone that has GPS. Dont go on your around the world Boat Trip unless you know how to read the stars, because the GPS could let you off course...

    11. Re:There is no evidence of the claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell is this offtopic? Ok he may have exagerated a bit on the planes crashing into teh tarmac thing, but I think he has a point!

    12. Re:There is no evidence of the claim by edrugtrader · · Score: 0

      umm... actually they DID degrade the US and i was relying on my cars navigation system at the time. when you are going 50mph through busy cities with tons of cross streets, 100m off makes the system useless. I could see my destination but i was hopping all over the map...

      NOT FUD. you are FUD.

      --
      MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
  14. What about planes?? by borgdows · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Civilian planes use GPS, don't they?
    What about other critical systems like police, ambulance, fire brigades and so on??

    1. Re:What about planes?? by bluelip · · Score: 2

      The ability to downgrade the precision of for civilian gps units has existed for years. Whoever designed the system should have already taken this into account.

      --

      Yep, I never spell check.
      More incorrect spellings can be found he
    2. Re:What about planes?? by mwillems · · Score: 5, Informative

      In small planes (I used to fly them), GPS is auxiliary. A good pilot does not rely on GPS. Precisely becuase it dould be disabled.

      And in large aircraft, where GPS is used there are many other systems as backup. And final approach etc is of course never based on GPS. So, do not worry.

      Michael

      --

      ---
      BDOS ERR ON A:>
    3. Re:What about planes?? by flonker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Last I heard, GPS is not approved for navigational use by the FAA. Meaning, you can use it, but you need to have alternate systems, and can't rely on it.

      Civilian planes will still use navigational radio beacons. This is one of the first things they teach you when you go for a private pilot's license. (First step for a non-military commercial pilot's license. Military licensing is probably similar.)

    4. Re:What about planes?? by _Spirit · · Score: 1

      It's the other way round, IIRC in the early days the civilian system was always low precision, the randomization was always on.

      --

      beauty is only a light switch away

    5. Re:What about planes?? by Bluelive · · Score: 0

      Planes use their own ground based positioning systems and radar for precision stuff like landing. A plane should get by with a ~100 metre accuracy midflight ?

    6. Re:What about planes?? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Yea they probably have GPS have on in a civilian noncomercial plane. But 100 meters isn't going to matter much when your talking about reaching your destination then ILS will generaly be there to get you to the runway. This is something simple DO NOT RELY on GPS it's a navigation aid not a replacement for a compotent and awake navigator. There are also a slew of localize systems that dot he same thing for shipping etc.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    7. Re:What about planes?? by (eternal_software) · · Score: 1

      GPS is approved for "supplemental" navigation only. A primary system based on ground facilities must be installed in the aircraft as well. This requirement is found in FAA Part 91.205(d), by way of the following statement:

      "Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used."

      Although, as a pilot who uses GPS heavily, I don't see them ever doing what this article states.

    8. Re:What about planes?? by worst_name_ever · · Score: 1
      Last I heard, GPS is not approved for navigational use by the FAA.

      GPS is absolutely approved for navigational use by the FAA. That's why approach- and enroute-certified GPS receivers have been around for many years.

      --

      In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
    9. Re:What about planes?? by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      What about other critical systems like police, ambulance, fire brigades and so on??

      Well, in Britain the Fire Brigade are planning to time their strike over a pay raise (16% isn't enough for them, they want a 40% raise while inflation is only 2%) to coincide with the outbreak of war, meaning the Army (19,000 troops, an entire Division's worth) will be taking on their role. So they will have military GPS anyway.

    10. Re:What about planes?? by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Yep. Also, WAAS and a few other things are being implemented to increase accuracy. Granted, it's a great reference and nothing more. If I just followed the map, I'd be in trouble if my map told me that the road works and construction has now closed the road! :)

      --

      Gorkman

    11. Re:What about planes?? by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Informative

      Last I heard, GPS is not approved for navigational use by the FAA. Meaning, you can use it, but you need to have alternate systems, and can't rely on it.

      Your information is a little dated. GPS is most definitely approved for navigational use. Indeed, many NDB approaches have already been replaced with GPS approaches, and new GPS approaches are being certified all the time.

      My aircraft has a Garmin 540 GPS Nav/Com installed, which is certified for instrument approaches. All that having been said, as another noted, any competent pilot knows how to fly using a number of instruments, with as much redundancy as possible. Dialing in VOR (a radio navigational aid) and using DME (distance measuring equipment), monitoring a moving map GPS, and even having a VFR-only LORAN all dialed up and operational at the same time provides invaluable cross-checking, should one instrument or another fail.

      I've had my DME fail (but had GPS and even the LORAN availabe as a cross reference, in addition to triangulating two separate VORs), I've had my DG fail (but had the compass and, again, the GPS to cross-check with), and once I even had my compass fail (a seal went bad and the kerosine leaked out, so, while the compass still worked, it was far too wobbly in any but the smoothest conditions to be of much use). Once again, the GPS and working DG were sufficient to navigate on to the next decent sized airport, where I got it fixed. As for my NDB ... I had the finicky thing pulled out to make room for my GPS Nav/Com ... an additional glide slope, moving map positional awareness, and nav/com more than made up for the loss of AM Radio reception and the ability to navigate using an ever decreasing number of NDB stations. Of course, in South Dakota a number of AWOS and ASOS stations broadcast on NDB frequencies, but then that is what UNICOM or Flight Service are good for, in a pinch.

      Pilotage (using visual references like lakes, landmarks, etc.), radio navigation, and competency with a GPS are all skills that are taught a civilian pilot (assuming said equipment is available). For an instrument rating, if the instrument is in the panel, you will be tested on it. This definitely includes a moving map GPS, if your aircraft is equipped with one, and flying a GPS approach if it is IFR certified.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    12. Re:What about planes?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aircraft are not dependent upon GPS facilities.

      GPS signals are never used for precision airport approaches (although non-precision GPS approaches with much higher altitude "minimums" are in common use). Precision approaches rely upon ILS or microwave ground based systems. Surveillance approach control radar (ASR) and/or precision approach radar (PAR) are available for use in emergency situations.

      GPS has does not provide sufficiently accurate altitude guidance (without WAIS based ground augmentation which is not yet certified for approaches) to allow its use in a precision approach environment.

      While GPS is in common use for "enroute" navigation, all aircraft of any consequence (including ALL aircraft certified to fly in instrument meteorological conditions, i.e. clouds, which includes EVERY aircraft which carries passengers for hire) also are equipped with nav radios that track VOR or VORTAC (combined VOR and TACAN) ground based signals. LORAN is also available in many aircraft. Ocean flying aircraft also tend to be equipped with inertial navigation equipment.

      Degrading GPS signal accuracy will have little, if any, effect on the private and public flying.

    13. Re:What about planes?? by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      Very few PD's use GPS (at least with my experience in writing code for them here in Texas). Most have very tight budgets, and have no need for a system that can be subverted by using the radios they already have installed. I have, however, heard of a few (generally those that have extremely high tax bases) that use them, both for locating incidents and for locating their own patrol cars. It made me wonder how easy it would be to build a "patrol car buster" to find exactly where those speed traps are....

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    14. Re:What about planes?? by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      And final approach etc is of course never based on GPS.

      Eh? Just how do all of those GPS approaches I teach work, then?

      Dave Buckles
      CFII 2711311 06/04

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    15. Re:What about planes?? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Given what you said, it's amazing that pilots during WWII or even WWI were able to take off, let alone land their planes. Somehow, they managed to do it, though. I can't imagine how flying/landing a Sesna is anywhere near as difficult as flying/landing a

      Do pilots no longer look outside their cockpits? I see no thrill in that. And why else bother flying?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    16. Re:What about planes?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pre WWII flying was no where near as safe. There were actually more fatal events per flight.

      Safety has increased in both the military and civilian areas of flying.

      Airspace was nowhere near as crowded. The planes didn't go as fast. Planes could not take off and land during the poor visibility that is common for aircraft to fly through today.

      You probably can't imagine because you've never flown before. Maybe you should actually attempt at flying in instrument conditions after receiving the proper training to get a better perspective. Then you won't have to imagine.

    17. Re:What about planes?? by David+Jericho · · Score: 2, Informative
      Only as a backup system. Pilots still have to be able to navigate (like they have for the last 90 years) by visual references and dead reckoning, or instrumentation.

      Larger aircraft use intertial navigation systems in preference to GPS based. INS is dependant on the aeroplane being in a known location before flight, and usually can place itself to a few metres after flying half way around the globe. It's also not prone to the obscure jumps and hops that can happen with GPS.

    18. Re:What about planes?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't find a link, but I heard a trucker once mention police transponder detectors. He said it gives him a mile or two notice of a cop car.

    19. Re:What about planes?? by mwillems · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I mean "solely". Very easily doable to make another type of approach.

      --

      ---
      BDOS ERR ON A:>
  15. effect/affect by TummyX · · Score: 0


    This will not effect the military P code.


    Effects affect things.

    1. Re:effect/affect by amcguinn · · Score: 1

      Shout it!

      People who get this wrong really need treatment.

      I used to fantasise about setting up a "Remedial English Grammar" course at my last workplace, but the #1 person who needed to be on it was the Managing Director.

      I think the reason this particular example gets me so angry is because everyone knows that "X is affected" is correct, but some people think that "X is effected" means the same thing and sounds "cleverer". So "X is effected" doesn't just mean "I am ignorant" (many people can't help that), it means "I am ignorant, but I think I am clever".

    2. Re:effect/affect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe exactly, you're so right man !

      (Psst btw it's fantasize, not fantasise. I'm not a native English speaker myself but I think that's how they spell it :)

      Peace !

    3. Re:effect/affect by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      I used to fantasise about setting up a "Remedial English Grammar" course

      You REALLY need to get a life. Seriously.

    4. Re:effect/affect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Effect' can be used as a verb, basically "to bring into being". As in "The lower salaries effected a change in the workers' morale". Of course, no one but bitter pedants such as myself uses the word that way.

    5. Re:effect/affect by billybob2001 · · Score: 1

      This will not effect the military P code

      Until someone has the bright idea of blaming it for a "Friendly Fire" incident.

      Of course, it would be much easier simply to blame the French, now it's become a habit.

      --

      Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair, in this post-911 era, think of the children - the Iraqi children. If you do not, then the terrorists have won.

  16. What about differential GPS by msmalcelj · · Score: 1

    Can someone comment on feasibility of Differential GPS infrastructure for country that hasn't got own satelites, but wants to secure precise locating ability for services from 911 to Public transportation.

    1. Re:What about differential GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GSM cell phone location is easier, cheaper, works in cities (think buildings getting on the line of sight to sats), and will fit in your pocket.

      The simplest implementation has zero extra hardware if you already have a cell phone: SMS or call 555-WHERE-THE-HELL-AM-I.

  17. Thats one reason why europe should build own GPS by Neuronerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are plans for building a similar system to GPS in Europe so that we are not too much depending on the american empire. The following page nicely explains the concept. More is available here . This is technically very interesting and should open up new possibilities for navigation. Furthermore being constructed jointly by many partners and nations we can be reasonably sure that it can not be compromised by one weak leader.

    --
    Googlefight "Slashdot Troll" against "BSD is dying" 303:229. BSD thus cant die.
  18. Nope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Tax money makes terror legal. ppl who have no money are terrorists.

    1. Re:Nope! by Apro+im · · Score: 1

      It's not like they're sabotaging a civilian system. The GPS sattelites are owned and run by the US government. It is sheerly at the government's discretion with whom they share information needed to use the sattelites - I suppose, in theory, they could mute sattelites when they were out of the line of sight of the US (though that wouldn't really serve a purpose).

    2. Re:Nope! by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      ... And the government is owned and run by the people of the US who are civilians.

      While leaders in the government may not always do what we want them to do, we DO ultimatly have control via the Vote. If we REALLY want to, we can vote evey single person in office Out, and replace them with people more in line with our views.

      That said, most ignorant people vote for the person with the best hair and most money, which really skews the system. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to educate the general public on what exactly the current people in government are doing.

    3. Re:Nope! by zaphod110676 · · Score: 1

      While leaders in the government may not always do what we want them to do, we DO ultimatly have control via the Vote. If we REALLY want to, we can vote evey single person in office Out, and replace them with people more in line with our views. I keep trying but it's all the other idiots who keep getting in the way. =)

      --
      To Do: 1. Take over world 2. Pick up Milk and Bread on the way home
    4. Re:Nope! by sxpert · · Score: 1

      we DO ultimatly have control via the Vote.
      ahem... you seem to have messed up badly the last time ;-)

  19. Gelileo by matt4077 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Can't wait for the european system to be up and working. Nothing better than a little competition. And hopefully the us and europe will never be at war at the same time.

    1. Re:Gelileo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say Europe will be next on the GW Busg list-of-countries-to-invade-because-god-told-me-to -since-I-recovered-from -alcoholism.

    2. Re:Gelileo by kir · · Score: 1, Funny
      No doubt that Europe some day will be the next on the US' countries-to-invade-because-god-told-us-so list.

      I am eagerly awaiting that day. Then I can get free oil and beer!

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    3. Re:Gelileo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe YOU have no doubts, but I sure do. As far as I know, there is no state known as "Europe" anyway...perhaps you are thinking of some of the individual countries in Europe. In any case, this conjecture is just that...

    4. Re:Gelileo by jalet · · Score: 1

      At least THIS is fun !

      Thanks for the laugh.

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    5. Re:Gelileo by Frans+Faase · · Score: 1

      The United States of America already have said that they would liberate Americans that would be brought before the International Court of Justice in the Hague in the Netherlands (Holland). I believe they even signed an act to support an invasion in such a case.

    6. Re:Gelileo by jalet · · Score: 1

      In my ideal world, there would be no country at all.
      Note that this doesn't mean : only one country.

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    7. Re:Gelileo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you KNOW he has recovered? Maybe this is just one big hangover.

    8. Re:Gelileo by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Just because the US doesn't believe in surrendering national sovereignty for um, well, uh, hmmm. What exactly did the Europeans get for giving up their sovereignty, anyway? I've never been able to figure that out.

  20. In other news today... by Noryungi · · Score: 4, Funny


    John R. Smith, of Peoria (Ill.) drove his brand-new SUV through the security glass doors of his bank, while following his GPS navigator.

    "I was only following the indications of this @!!%!! machine -- and it told me I still needed to travel straight ahead for a hundred meters!", Smith tried to explain as he was taken into custody by the Peoria Police Department for "breaking and entering".

    The Peoria Intercontinental Bank representatives were unavailable for comments.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:In other news today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John R Smith must be a visitor from a country where the metric system is used....it sure isn't used in Peoria!

    2. Re:In other news today... by websensei · · Score: 1

      less funny when a recreational boat user runs aground when lost in fog and the only aid is gps. in which case those hundred meters count for a LOT.

      --

      La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
    3. Re:In other news today... by j7953 · · Score: 3, Funny

      This did actually happen in Germany: some idiot drove his car into a river because the navigation system displayed a bridge, but actually there was only a ferry.

      See pictures of his car here (scroll down).

      The last paragraph of the text says: "Please note: A GPS system cannot be a substitute for the driver's attention! In december 1998, a driver trusted his navigation system which suggested to continue driving straight ahead. A few seconds later, his car got wet because his road database didn't know anything about the ferry across the Havel (a river near Berlin). This is not a joke! The TV channel RTL had a report."

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    4. Re:In other news today... by jeavis · · Score: 1
      Noryungi wrote:
      John R. Smith, of Peoria (Ill.) ...
      You laugh, but things like this really do happen here in Peoria. Take a look at the police blotter [Google cache] from our local paper from an issue from last month. Scroll down to the bottom, it's the second-to-last item.
    5. Re:In other news today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey...this can't be funny! It's not making fun of Americans! Oh wait, I don't mean the liberals, I mean those ignorant meanies who drive those SUV's!

    6. Re:In other news today... by Dannon · · Score: 1

      Excellent proof that, every time man comes out with more idiot-proof technology, evolution will produce better idiots.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
  21. STDMA by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is a better alternative to GPS named STDMA (Self-organizing Time Division Multiple Access). It is patented with U.S. Patent No. 5,506,587, which you may find HERE.

    It is in use in marine navigation. See also HERE and for a tech overview HERE.

    Apparently, the US has tried to suppress the system as it may well replace GPS because of better performance and other reasons; one can imagine wartime control may be of importance here.

    1. Re:STDMA by Harald+Paulsen · · Score: 1

      Uhm, STDMA is not an alternative to GPS. In fact, each ship uses GPS to find its position, but then broadcasts it (along with some other information, like a ID-code, destination, ETA and cargo) with STDMA to nearby ships.

      --
      Harald
    2. Re:STDMA by Greger47 · · Score: 1

      You have completley misunderstood the purpose of AIS and STDMA.

      It's NOT used to get a fix on your own position. It's used to broadcast your current position (obtained by GPS or other means) to others at sea so that they can avoid running into you.

      STDMA is used to share a VHF channel for these broadcasts.

  22. This hardly seems 'fair' by bushboy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But then again, there's not much fairness in this whole debacle.

    I'm not about to argue with that kinda military force - only a madman would do that ;)

    --
    A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
  23. A Regional Blackout More Likely by avdi · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's more likely that localized blackout or jamming in the Iraq region will be used, rather than a global downgrade. See here for more.

    --

    --
    CPAN rules. - Guido van Rossum
    1. Re:A Regional Blackout More Likely by johnkoer · · Score: 1

      Regional Blocking???

      How do the satellites know where they are? Do they use GPS :)?

    2. Re:A Regional Blackout More Likely by jkrise · · Score: 1

      Right... and that region is likely to be Germany and/or France rather than Iraq. Simply 'cos Iraqi citizens and theri military are the least likely ones to be using GPS anyway!

      This control over upgrade / degrade has more scope for misuse, IMHO.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    3. Re:A Regional Blackout More Likely by realnowhereman · · Score: 1

      erm... yes. it's quite conceivable that a GPS satellite could use GPS satellites to find it's position. If they didn't know where they where how could they tell you where you are?

      --
      Carpe Daemon
    4. Re:A Regional Blackout More Likely by stubear · · Score: 1

      There's this little place called NORAD. Perhaps you've heard of it? They track all satellites in orbit. Trust me on this, they know EXACTLY where those satellites are.

  24. So the US sold the GPS equipment as well? by Snaller · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean I know they sold them Anthrax, but didn't know about the GPS euipment ;)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:So the US sold the GPS equipment as well? by larien · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. There was a comedy show ("Between Iraq and a Hard Place"; very funny, but worryingly accurate) which said "We know that in 1990 Iraq had enough Anthrax to kill the world population twice over. We know this, because we sold him most of it."

    2. Re:So the US sold the GPS equipment as well? by mgblst · · Score: 4, Funny

      A joke in The Australian newspaper the other day:

      Reporter: So how do you know that the Iraqis have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

      American: We kept the reciepts!

      boom boom.

    3. Re:So the US sold the GPS equipment as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's another joke going around... "How does Bush know that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?" "His dad showed him the receipts" Bush Sr was head of CIA once.

    4. Re:So the US sold the GPS equipment as well? by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      American: We kept the reciepts!

      Sly jokes aside, where is the proof of that? Example: Hans Blix and his team found artillery warheads for the delivery of chemical weapons. The calibre was 122mm. But the US and UK don't use that, our artillery goes from 105mm straight to 155mm. There are also 120mm mortars around in the West, but mortars don't fire artillery shells, and anyway, 2mm is enough for it not to fit. So, wherever Saddam got them, it wasn't from us, was probably from the old Soviet Empire.

    5. Re:So the US sold the GPS equipment as well? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they are talking about the content not the container.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    6. Re:So the US sold the GPS equipment as well? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Sly jokes aside, where is the proof of that?

      here

      A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  25. Alternative by tamyrlin · · Score: 2, Informative

    It is not so well known that the russians have a system similar to GPS. More information at http://www.rssi.ru/SFCSIC/english.html

  26. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by Zone-MR · · Score: 1

    What would that help? Are you saying that you are against the idea of scarambling the singnals when neccessary to prevent Iraqi missiles bombing our asses?

    If Iraq are stupid enough to design technology to use during war, that relies on a signal transmitted by their enemy, I believe the idea of dissrupting that signal - locally and temporarily is very sly indeed.

    What I find distrubing in the article is that newer GPS receivers wont be affected. How does that work, and isnt that a flaw unless they know for certain Iraqi missiles rely on the 'old' technology?

  27. IN TERRORIST IRAQ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the GPS positions YOU!

    (It's only a local effect - it will only matter in the war zone, not in Europe or in the US)

  28. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by ccmay · · Score: 1
    Yes, we all know how well European bureaucracies compete with American ingenuity... X.500 anyone?

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
  29. You hit Israle with you over distance rockets by oliverthered · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    umm....
    We used your fucked up GPS signals to guide the WMD that you provided all the raw materials for and had provided us in the past.

    Anyonly else ever think of gasing the Iraqi population apart from the UK?

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:You hit Israle with you over distance rockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Anyonly else ever think of gasing the Iraqi
      > population apart from the UK?

      The Iraq government has done it.

    2. Re:You hit Israle with you over distance rockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this English? I read this post several times and I still don't have a clue as to what it means.

    3. Re:You hit Israle with you over distance rockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did they get the gas?

    4. Re:You hit Israle with you over distance rockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France

    5. Re:You hit Israle with you over distance rockets by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      Wrong!

      Germany!

      Where did they get the anthrax?

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    6. Re:You hit Israle with you over distance rockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the US and the UK.

    7. Re:You hit Israle with you over distance rockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about nerve gas? The United States seems pretty good at burning nerve gas and exposing U.S. citizens from Alabama to Utah to its waste products (Families Concerned about Nerve Gas Incineration: www.ag.auburn.edu/grassroots/fcngi & Families Against Incinerator Risk: www.fair-utah.org), but how about Iraq and their rumored VX nerve gas? Ritter explains in a recent talk he gave in Boston:

      "The research and development factory is destroyed. The product of that factory is destroyed. The weapons they loaded up have been destroyed. More importantly, the equipment procured from Europe that was going to be used for their large-scale VX nerve agent factory was identified by the special commission -- still packed in its crates in 1997 -- and destroyed. Is there a VX nerve agent factory in Iraq today? Not on your life."

  30. Prisoners by oniony · · Score: 1
    Does the US employ prisoner tagging using GPS technology for 'soft' imprisonment of criminals to their homes or local area? If so, have the implications of inaccurate GPS been considered in this respect, i.e. the confined area becoming suddenly wider.

    I guess their choices are to move the tagged prisoners back to jails, deal with implications of the reduced certainty of location (i.e. harder to use as evidence) or to move to another technology.

    It will certainly lead to the prisoner's virtual boundary being made 90 metres wider which will make it a lot easier for a criminal to disassociate him- or herself with a crime.

    --

    Powered by onion juice.

    1. Re:Prisoners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the US employ prisoner tagging using GPS technology for 'soft' imprisonment of criminals to their homes or local area?

      Well, no they don't, and you are a fucking moron. You thought they had GPS collars on or something? Maybe they can just give them shock collars and set up a perimeter around the house, that would keep them in!!

    2. Re:Prisoners by GeneralUrsus · · Score: 1

      Yes they do. Pay attention...

      http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2002/1021/tec-gp s- 10-21-02.asp

      http://www.press.spyzone.com/Newsrelease/some_st at es_track_parolees.htm

      Search Google before you spout off. There are hunders more links.

  31. Huh? by vrt3 · · Score: 1
    I just read those pages (diagonally, I must admit) and from what I understand STDMA is not an alternative to GPS; it uses GPS. From that last URL:

    STDMA Transponder

    The main STDMA transponder subsystems are:

    1. GNSS (GPS) satellite receiver
    2. System processor
    3. VHF radio transceiver

    Positioning data is provided from the GNSS satellite receiver and communicated by the VHF radio transceiver to other mobile units and to ground station networks for data collections. The transmission is controlled by the STDMA System Processor and synchronized by an accurate timing signal (UTC) derived from the GNSS system.

    It's a system for VHF communication, meant for ships to automatically transmit their positions etc. to each other.

    --
    This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I understood it correctly, it uses any over-the-air (OTA) positioning system. GPS "just happened" to be the around when developed and already widely available.

      Other, ground-based systems can give even higher precision (~1cm) than the current, satellite-based, using this technology.

  32. Nuller by Syncroswitch · · Score: 1

    I would not expect them to be overly concerned on this, It would be more effective to use nuller spot beams from a geosyncronous byrd,(like those on the MILSTAR constellation) than to play with the GPS system, that has multiple civilian uses at the edge of it region ( i.e. areas not affected by the war, but still in its reigon... Saudi, Turkey, Israel.) The use of ground based jamming equipment and space based nullers should give a more controlled area of comms blackout, and increase the chance of misnavigation more than messing up sadams backpacker gps...

  33. NTP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is unclear whether the random misinformation sent will be in the satellite position data or the satellite timing data. If it is the latter, many GPS-based NTP time servers could be thrown off. That would not be a Good Thing.

    1. Re:NTP by eagl · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's essentially the same thing. The accuracy is degraded by offsetting the clock just a little bit. We're talking errors of only miliseconds here so you can still set your watch by GPS, but it's enough to throw in an uncertainty volume into the computed position. Remember that the position is actually calculated by the GPS device through the differences in received timestamps (simple version of how it works).

  34. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by haggar · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, the American "empire". Well dude, I am a European (Finland), but I don't think the American "empire" owes us anything. GPS is just a present to the world, not anything US was obliged to do.

    And if you're French by any chance: next time the nazis are sipping cofee in Paris, I hope you ask for the "inspectors to have more time". :o)

    --
    Sigged!
  35. Not an alternative, just an application of GPS by NKJensen · · Score: 1

    You got it wrong, I'm afraid.

    The patent covers a position INDICATING system, not a position FINDING system.

    STDMA depends on GPS to deliver an accurate timing signal. The timing is then used to pick the right time to transmit in "your" timeslot on the shared radio frequency.

    The links you included even suggest that the marine transponders using this technology should transmit their positions - which is also delivered by the GPS.

    --
    -- From Denmark
  36. Alternatives by Bozovision · · Score: 5, Insightful
    And this is EXACTLY why the EU wants their own alternative civilian version of GPS, and why the US has argued against it. Suprise!

    Apparently the Pentagon sees no compelling reason for an alternative to GPS. Oops, that would be before they checked their GPS units round about now. Oh wait, I forgot, they have their fingers on the buttons, perhaps that why they can't see a compelling reason.

    Oops look; those pesky photons might interfere with each other

    On the other hand, to be fair, the US could have just degraded the signal without announcing it. At least now ships and planes probably won't be piloted into rocks.

    1. Re:Alternatives by FPCat · · Score: 0

      I thought the EU wanted their own version so they could get metric results? ;)

    2. Re:Alternatives by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      THanks for the links. Very informative. In their it says that the US military has never degraded civilian service, neither during Gulf War I or during Kosovo. Though there are contigency plans to limit affectiveness for a specific area (from one of the links). Sounds good to me. But the important part is that it's never been done.

      The interference sounds like a very serious issue as well.

      Also, the US didn't annoucne anything--we still have no idea if the signals will be degraded or not. This all comes on the speculation of a German autoclub--no doubt the first group of people informed of US military policy.

      Scott

    3. Re:Alternatives by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      And this is EXACTLY why the EU wants their own alternative civilian version of GPS

      Actually, that wouldn't be strictly a civilian version due to its very nature. Any navigation system is inherently dual-use in nature, and as these satellites are used for military purposes they could be targetted in a war (as could the US GPS and communications satellites). The EU would probably do well to configure the system to operate in a low-accuracy mode in times of war, lest their satellites become targets. Of course, the US would probably prefer to use jamming or some other non-invasive technique to deny their use in only a limited area, but if the system is sufficiently robust we might see anti-satellite weapons used (or at least better-developed than they are today)...

  37. As it works on returning coordinates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...why can't they selectively turn off GPS for the whole of Iraq? Or am I missing the point on how it works?

    1. Re:As it works on returning coordinates... by maroberts · · Score: 1
      You are missing the point on how it works.

      Put simply GPS Satellites just tell you the time they send a signal. A GPS receiver gets a time signal from 3 (2d fixes) or 4 (3d fixes) satellites and since each signal takes a finite time to arrive, the distance to each satellite can be calculated. Knowing the distance to each satellite means you can find your position by means of triangulation.

      Note that in Iraq, it is likely that in any 24 hour period nearly all the 21 or so satellites that are used in the system may be used to determine position, as the satellites are not stationary over the earths surface, and satellites that are used to fix postion in Iraq will at some time or other be used to fix position all over the world. You can't disable GPS fixes for a specific region.

      Yes, I do know that time has to be solved for as well, I'm trying to keep the explanation simple, OK

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    2. Re:As it works on returning coordinates... by DanDwig · · Score: 1

      Pardon me, but the last time I checked orbital mechanics defined the position of a satellite rather well. Therefore it is possible to say if we disable/degrade this satellite at this time, and then that one at such and such a time, performance will be severly curtailed in such and such a region. I would tend to suspect that the US military has the capability to do this selectively. ( I would, if I owned the system)

    3. Re:As it works on returning coordinates... by maroberts · · Score: 1

      But it would also degrade performance in many other regions too. The thing is, the usefu; sateliites for 2D navigation are not the ones flying directly over Iraq, but the ones on the Iraq horizon. ( ideal GPS constellation is 3 satellites at low elevation 120 degrees apart, plus one over head). These satellites are also being useful to other navigators as well, so degrading individual satellites when they form the most useful constellation over Iraq would also fuck up someone navigating in the Mediterranean, or the Indian Ocean.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

  38. We are, you know. by NKJensen · · Score: 1

    There will be a war with Iraq within a few days.

    The coalition against Iraq counts 30 members at least. Quite a few of these are European.

    --
    -- From Denmark
    1. Re:We are, you know. by protonman · · Score: 1

      Hit me. Name them. All 30.

      --
      The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.
    2. Re:We are, you know. by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      To quote Reuters Asia
      Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Britain, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey and Uzbekistan
      With an additional 15-20 nations that have pledged conditional support (France will assist if Iraq uses WMD) or who wish to remain silent for fear of reprisal from Hussein (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Iran, Syria, Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Greece, and Yemen are potential members of this list.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    3. Re:We are, you know. by pubjames · · Score: 1

      The coalition against Iraq counts 30 members at least. Quite a few of these are European.

      The "coalition of willing" list is:

      Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

      And just in case you didn't realise it, in most of those countries the vast majority of the population is against the war. So, some coalition.

    4. Re:We are, you know. by protonman · · Score: 1

      Thanks :-)

      --
      The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.
    5. Re:We are, you know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about the rest of the other 191 countries?

    6. Re:We are, you know. by aallan · · Score: 1

      Afghanistan, Albania, Australia...

      I think the last Austrialian opinon poll I saw put something like 90% of the population against the war.

      ...Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan

      In the UK 65 to 70% of the population are agianst the war. In Turkey, even with massive bribes the US couldn't get the Turkish Parliment to let them use the country to base troops.

      Appart from the UK there really isn't anyone in the "coalition" with global reach, nobody that has the ability to make large medium term troop deployments on a global scale. Heck, some of the countries don't actually have a military to speak of...

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    7. Re:We are, you know. by pubjames · · Score: 1

      or who wish to remain silent for fear of reprisal from Hussein (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Iran, Syria, Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Greece, and Yemen)

      That's one way to spin it. Can you think of another reason why there isn't a single arabic country in the "coallition of willing" list? Come on, think about it...

    8. Re:We are, you know. by pubjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you didn't read the end of my post, where I point out that the majority of the populations in the countries in the "coallition of willing" are against the war.

      Anyways, comments from us appeasers /euroweenies /liberals are just getting modded down as "flamebait" at the moment, so not much point in posting.

    9. Re:We are, you know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And many of those countries didn't even know they were on that list (Colombia expressed surprise when they found out), and the majority of the population in some of those countries (ie Britain) oppose the US invasion.

    10. Re:We are, you know. by aallan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you didn't read the end of my post, where I point out that the majority of the populations in the countries in the "coallition of willing" are against the war.

      I was adding some supporting statistics...

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
    11. Re:We are, you know. by sysjkb · · Score: 1
      Appart from the UK there really isn't anyone in the "coalition" with global reach, nobody that has the ability to make large medium term troop deployments on a global scale

      I don't think that anyone besides the UK, US, and France is currently capable of making "large medium term troop deployments on a global scale". China and India would have insurmountable logistical issues invading Iceland. Even Russia seems better defined a regional powerhouse, although sheer size makes its region large.

      Sincerely yours,
      Jeffrey Boulier

    12. Re:We are, you know. by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Heck, France and Germany don't actually have a military to speak of . . . :)

    13. Re:We are, you know. by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Well, let's see. Turkey is worried that the Kurds could get their own country, and all the other ones are ruled by tyrants that may be concerned about the ramifications of a successful democratic Muslim country.

      Now if we said we were going to install a different tyrant that wasn't interested in developing WMDs, they'd join right up :).

  39. Military Accuracy not effected by MosesJones · · Score: 1


    "Hell we still can't hit a Barn Door from 200 yards" says General Norman Bates.

    I think I'd almost prefer the feeling that the miltary blew up a hospital because they had the wrong data for accuracy, rather than a feeling that they did it on purpose.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Military Accuracy not effected by MosesJones · · Score: 1

      Here, here and here

      --
      An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    2. Re:Military Accuracy not effected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More conjecture and droning from asshats who already have reasons to lie about it.

      Bring the objective reports, bitch, not some socialist saying "America sucks, we can't prove it, but you should believe us anyway"

  40. it *is* our stuff by g4dget · · Score: 1, Insightful
    The military isn't a private entity. The military, and anything they own, is paid for by your and my tax dollars, and it is owned by the US government. We, the voters, get to decide how it's going to be used ultimately, by electing and kicking out the executive and legislative branches of government.

    Incidentally, the many billions of dollars of equipment the military is about to blow up in Iraq don't come from nowhere either--they are coming from the check you and I are sending to Uncle Sam on April 15. The war may amount to somewhere between 10% and 20% of our taxes. I hope it's worth it because it sure is a lot of money.

    1. Re:it *is* our stuff by LazySlacker · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Isn't that a bit like saying. It isn't your car - the money used to buy it was given to you by your employer.

      I rather like to idea of getting a bunch of people together - going round to military HQ and saying - "can we have our bomb back?"

    2. Re:it *is* our stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with $70 Billion in emergency funding, damn skippy it's going to be less.

    3. Re:it *is* our stuff by oliverthered · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, I'm not paying their cheque next month.
      Oh, wait, they have the electric chair. fuck the employees right to kill me, where's slavery when you need it.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    4. Re:it *is* our stuff by Zuke8675309 · · Score: 1
      The war may amount to somewhere between 10% and 20% of our taxes. I hope it's worth it because it sure is a lot of money.


      Actually, in 2002 the US Gov collected ~$1.2 trillion in personal and corporate income taxes and another trillion dollars in other taxes (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide0 2.html#Table_2_1).
      It has been reported that Bush is going to send a $90 billion spending bill to congress to pay for the war. That's more like 4% of collected taxes.
    5. Re:it *is* our stuff by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Thanks for pointing that out, here is the link HTMLized for the lazy Tax Revenues

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    6. Re:it *is* our stuff by N3WBI3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yea but why bother with fact when you can bash Bush and be 1337

      --
    7. Re:it *is* our stuff by pebs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't that a bit like saying. It isn't your car - the money used to buy it was given to you by your employer.

      Well, no.. its more like you split the cost of your car and its maintainence with 200 million other people. And also you elected a driver and split the cost of this as well. You're not allowed to drive the car, but you can be one of the mechanics but you have to give up some of your rights as a passenger. You also have some input as to where the driver takes you, but this is split between all the people as well. This might have to be a larger vehicle, because 200 million people don't fit that easilly into a car; in which case everyone has to spend a little bit more.

      --
      #!/
    8. Re:it *is* our stuff by g4dget · · Score: 1
      You are including programs like social security and Medicare/Medicaid in those taxes. That doesn't make sense. If you look at just discretionary spending, you pretty much cut collected taxes in half, which basically confirms the lower end of my statement.

      Furthermore, Bush's spending bill doesn't account anywhere near for all the costs to the US government associated with the war (let alone the cost to our economy).

    9. Re:it *is* our stuff by g4dget · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Bush makes it so easy to bash him.

      Besides, my facts are right--Zuke's figures actually confirm it.

    10. Re:it *is* our stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military isn't a private entity. The military, and anything they own, is paid for by your and my tax dollars, and it is owned by the US government. We, the voters, get to decide how it's going to be used ultimately, by electing and kicking out the executive and legislative branches of government.

      So that means I can borrow an A-10 this weekend and clear out some of those trees in my backyard.

    11. Re:it *is* our stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. A bomb is a thing, the GPS network is a service. It's more like saying "can we have our electricity and water services turned back on?" As it appears more and more people are becoming accustomed to viewing the government as keepers and not servants of the public good, I fear they'll soon no longer find this a ghastly analogy.

    12. Re:it *is* our stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a moron. Hey -- why don't you get a job, you pantywaist fucking liberal pussy.

    13. Re:it *is* our stuff by mfrank · · Score: 1

      The cost to our economy? The stock market and the oil prices have been waiting for the war to get over with (good or bad) in order to start recovering. Getting the war over will help the economy.

      Not that that's a valid reason for the war. I don't even believe that's a reason for the war. I honestly believe that Bush is doing it because he believes it will improve national security. He was not at all into intervention and "nation building" and was even considering reducing sanctions when he took office; then he did a 180 after 9/11.

    14. Re:it *is* our stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your facts are shit, and so are your opinions.

      Anti-American faggot.

    15. Re:it *is* our stuff by g4dget · · Score: 1
      The cost to our economy? The stock market and the oil prices have been waiting for the war to get over with (good or bad) in order to start recovering. Getting the war over will help the economy.

      The markets aren't the economy. The labor and resources that go into building the stuff that's blown up in Iraq are labor and resources that aren't being used for creating new factories, consumer goods, spacecraft, research results, medical care, etc.

      Even if the markets were as important as you think, the economy was down before Iraq even became an issue; Iraq was an issue that was added on top of that. If the markets "have been waiting", then Iraq was overall a big minus, delaying the recovery of the markets by many months.

    16. Re:it *is* our stuff by g4dget · · Score: 1
      Isn't that a bit like saying. It isn't your car - the money used to buy it was given to you by your employer.

      No, it isn't. My employer legally has no say in what I do with my car. But I very much have a say in the affairs of my government, through the democratic process, and it is the government that owns the hardware.

      I rather like to idea of getting a bunch of people together - going round to military HQ and saying - "can we have our bomb back?"

      You should, because that's what we can do every two years when we go to the polls.

      Let's just hope that you actually will get together with other people and say "can we have our bomb back?". You might ask for it in the form of tax cuts, or better schools, or lots of other things.

    17. Re:it *is* our stuff by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      But what happens when you don't want a car, or to go anywhere. 200 million people drag you along and make you pay.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  41. onstar? by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't a number of commercial services like onstar use gps to track vehicles?

    'Be calm madam, you are not lost. According to us you are floating off the coast of San Diego. You should be fine once high tide rolls in.'

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    1. Re:onstar? by Lxy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've got a friend in MN. One winter night he and his buddies decided to have some fun with Onstar. Knowing that the call center is somewhere in Florida or California, they drove onto Mille Lacs lake (a very huge lake for those of you who don't know, it's larger than most counties). They called up Onstar to ask for directions:

      Onstar: "hello?"

      Friend: "We're lost. Can you help us find our way back?"

      O: "Sure, hold on. Hmm.. this must not be working right. It says you're in the middle of a lake!"

      F: "I know. We need to find our way back to shore"

      O: "????"

      F: "We're in Minnesota. There's ice on our lakes here"

      O: "???? How are you in the middle of a lake?"

      F: "We drove out on the ice"

      O: "Why would you do that?"

      F: "Ice fishing"

      O: "?????"

      F: "Can you direct us to the nearest landing?"

      O: "Umm.. hang on a second. I need to get my supervisor."

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq
    2. Re:onstar? by Doodleman3 · · Score: 1

      Ostar's offline? Oh No! Poor Batman!

      --
      Never Underestimate A Human Being
    3. Re:onstar? by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1
      Knowing that the call center is somewhere in Florida or California
      From what I've heard before, the call center is located in Canada... Anyway, very funny post otherwise!
  42. Still doesn't really matter with DGPS by Drunken_Jackass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    S/A has always been a bit of a farce. It can be circumnavigated (no pun intended) if you use Differential GPS.

    Basically, you set one GPS receiver up at a known, surveyed location and program that location into the unit. Then when the receiver trilaterates its position based on the information the satellites provide, it does on-the-fly corrections (You say i'm here, but i know i'm here). It can then use that correction algorithm to correct the positions of other receivers.

    Of course doing that part on-the-fly is a bit more difficult (read expensive) because now you have to invest in radio communications back and forth between the two or more receivers - but it's often done. There are even services that have base stations set up across the country that sell a subscription-based service for that purpose.

    Most times, survey firms just log the data and correct after-the-fact back in the office from the base station (the differentiator) located in the same area.

    All in all, S/A only imposes the error to systems that don't have the capability == money to do DGPS.

    --
    There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
    1. Re:Still doesn't really matter with DGPS by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      S/A has always been a bit of a farce. It can be circumnavigated (no pun intended) if you use Differential GPS.

      Umm.. please qualify your atatement...

      S/A has always been a bit of a farce. It can be circumnavigated (no pun intended) if you use Differential GPS. IN A SMALL AREA

      DGPS only works for a linited range away from the base point. accuracy suffers the farther you get from the base unit. This is why the DGPS transits for surveying have a published useability maximum of 1Km from the base unit.

      which makes it 100% useless for a guided missle.

      although, a simple private plane packed with TNT needs only 100M accuracy.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  43. At least its temporary, not a big deal. by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guess we all just pospone that trip to the wilderness to get away from things..

    Take a MAP ( remember those things? ) on your next road trip...

    After the war the service will return to normal.

    Besides, who said we had a right to use GPS anyway?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:At least its temporary, not a big deal. by PinkFloyd · · Score: 1
      And I want all my tax money back that paid for welfare, because I never saw a penny of it...

      Moron...

      --

      The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.
  44. GPS jamming by g4dget · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I suspect the Iraqis have little need of GPS--their military probably knows their country pretty well and they don't have much in the way of smart weapons.

    GPS is much more important to the US military, which does not have on-the-ground knowledge there. The US should be more worried about the Iraqis jamming GPS signals and other communications.

    Of course, so far, it looks like Iraq is pretty feeble militarily. I suspect the war will be over very quickly. Which brings up the question again: why are we going?

    1. Re:GPS jamming by dachshund · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I suspect the Iraqis have little need of GPS--their military probably knows their country pretty well and they don't have much in the way of smart weapons.

      On the contrary. The Iraqis' biggest weakness in the first Gulf War was their inability to navigate through the open desert. There's very little in the way of navigation aids out there, so it doesn't matter how well you know the country.

      GPS is their ticket off of the roads, allowing them to do what we did-- go right through the unposted desert. My question is how much this signal will be degraded, and whether it will seriously hinder efforts at desert navigation.

    2. Re:GPS jamming by sql*kitten · · Score: 2, Insightful

      GPS is much more important to the US military, which does not have on-the-ground knowledge there. The US should be more worried about the Iraqis jamming GPS signals and other communications.

      Actually, given the satellite photos, reconaissance aircraft and special forces, the US/UK probably know Iraq better than most of Iraq's Generals by now. Look at who's in charge on either side: the Allies have professional soldiers with decades of experience on the ground in wars, peacekeeping, exercises etc all over the world. The Iraqis have various relatives and cronies of Saddam Hussein who probably never leave their palaces unless they have to.

      Of course, so far, it looks like Iraq is pretty feeble militarily. I suspect the war will be over very quickly. Which brings up the question again: why are we going?

      There are many factors to consider when evaluating military strength. One is power-projection, which is the ability to move your forces to where they're needed. The UK has a relatively small army (110,000 soldiers) but can partake in these sorts of adventures because it has the air/sea capability to move them around. Iraq (like North Korea, China and a few others) has a large military, but is unable to project them any further than neighboring countries. And while Iraq is militarily weak on a "global scale", it never intended to fight a global war - it was easily strong enough to take Kuwait, for example, and were it not for Allied garrisons, it could have taken Saudi Arabia, Oman and UAE without too much trouble.

      Even if you overlook the appalling human rights abuses Iraq's government is responsible for (including nerve gassing ethnic minorities), even if you ignore his sponsorship of Hamas (who admittedly aren't anything to do with al-Queda, but they're still terrorists), Saddam must not be permitted to invade his neighbors again. And yes, one reason for that is because if he gets control of all the oil, he can starve the West into submission.

    3. Re:GPS jamming by kinnell · · Score: 1
      Of course, so far, it looks like Iraq is pretty feeble militarily. I suspect the war will be over very quickly.

      That's exactly what they said about Vietnam, wasn't it? Most of Iraq will almost certainly be a push over, but when they get to Bagdad, there will be loyal well trained forces who are well dug in. Not to mention a lot of peeved civilians with dismembered corpses for children thanks to stray american bombs. Technology is of very little assistance in built up areas - look how the US military fared in Mogadishu. The only way this war will be quick is if the regime just surrenders without a fight. Iraq will almost certainly lose in the end, but there's a good chance it could turn into a very bloody massacre for both sides.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    4. Re:GPS jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why are we going? uh... have you been paying any attention to anything that has been going on the last couple of years?

      just cause it will be over quickly we shouldn't go? should we drag it out for a while or something? i dont know how you got modded up for being as uninformed as you are.

    5. Re:GPS jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why are we going? uh... have you been paying any attention to anything that has been going on the last couple of years?

      so why ARE we going? because saddam MIGHT have biological and chemical weapons that MIGHT be given to terrorists? (even though there haven't been any proven links and even Colin Powell's attempt at showing potential weapon hazards was full of holes and exaggerations)

      what's happened the last couple of years? psst here's a funny poll fact for you: 42% of americans believe that saddam was DIRECTLY respsonsible for the 09/11 world trade center attacks.

    6. Re:GPS jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

      Cost of a capable cruise missile using GPS targetting? ~ $200,000 dollars.

      Cost of our cruise missiles? 1.5 million, IIRC.

      Where is this money going, besides 500 dollar hammers?

      Laser gyros, accelerometers, terrain-following software.

      Believe me, the U.S. army prepared for war against an enemy with an anti-satellite capability. They no better than to depend on GPS for the critical stuff.

    7. Re:GPS jamming by Halo1 · · Score: 1
      Even if you overlook the appalling human rights abuses Iraq's government is responsible for (including nerve gassing ethnic minorities),
      Even if you overlook the appalling human rights abuses the US government is responsible for (like keeping alleged terrorists locked up without due process),
      even if you ignore his sponsorship of Hamas (who admittedly aren't anything to do with al-Queda, but they're still terrorists),
      even if you ignore their sponshorship of Al Qaeda (yes, *the* Al Qaeda), Saddam Houssein and who knows how many other "terrorists",
      Saddam must not be permitted to invade his neighbors again.
      the US must not be permitted to invade other countries (like Panama and probably soon Iraq) again.

      No, I'm not serious. I don't think there should be a world war against the USA. And yes, the USA also has done quite a few real humanitarian missions like in former Yugoslavia (unlike Saddam and Al Qaeda). But I'm sick of this rhetoric about how Saddam is so evil that the great US of A has to do a pre-emptive strike to save the poor Iraqi people and by extension the whole world.

      Frankly, I think that things will only get worse, *especially* in the battle against worldwide terrorism. I doubt the Iraqi people will see the US Army & allies as the ones that come to free them, but simply as a change of oppressor. First it was Saddam, afterwards it will be a sock puppet of the allies. The latter most likely won't use nerve gasses and I'm fairly certain that the overall situation will improve, but only in ways approved by the allies (ie., they control what will happen; they are the boss, not the Iraqi's themselves).

      And just like in Afghanistan, there will probably be mass arrests after the fighting is over, leaving lots of families without fathers & sons. Will the remaining people of those families say "Thank you allies for taking away these bad people from us!"? No, most likely they'll see it as a confirmation of Al Qaeda's assertions that the West only wants total control over the East and that the West is the oppressor in the conflict, with Al Qaeda the guerrilla movement that wants to protect them.

      If anything, I think this war will *increase* Al Qaeda's popularity and therefore also its power. These terrorist organisations depend on desperate people to join their ranks (in general only the top is truly "evil", the rest is merely misguided and/or brainwashed). Such a war will only ascertain their supply of fresh blood :(

      Then again, I'm just one of those Belgian weasels of course <g>

      --
      Donate free food here
    8. Re:GPS jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting to see how most people take a very self-centered view on this. The 'why' are we going seems to be very much because Iraq 'may' pose a threat to us.

      Why isn't there more focus on the Iraqi citizens who are forced to live under such a tyrant? The repression, the brutality and the barbarity of such a regime?

      Forget trying to justify it due to terrorist links, or supposed threats to US interests - just say it is because we owe it to the world...

    9. Re:GPS jamming by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Ugh! It has been said again, and again, and again... the US does not get the majority of it's oil from the middle east! Yes, it gets a lot, but it gets far more from Canada, Mexico, and South America. See here.

    10. Re:GPS jamming by Kallahar · · Score: 1

      Didn't you know? Iraq is a direct military threat to the United States.

    11. Re:GPS jamming by mfrank · · Score: 1

      1) Surround Baghdad
      2) Arm 50,000 Kurds and truck them to Baghdad, with Special Ops to call in air support as needed.
      3) ???
      4) Profit!

    12. Re:GPS jamming by Trepidity · · Score: 1
      Even if you overlook the appalling human rights abuses Iraq's government is responsible for (including nerve gassing ethnic minorities)
      ...
      Even if you overlook the appalling human rights abuses the US government is responsible for (like keeping alleged terrorists locked up without due process)


      Are you seriously suggesting that keeping around 200 alleged terrorists locked up without due process is somehow comparable to killing 5000 civilians with chemical weapons?
    13. Re:GPS jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have mod points, but they don't have a (-1) Idiot. Yeah, maybe that's the same thing they said about Vietnam. But it's also what they said about the Gulf War and Afghanistan. And they couldn't have been more wrong. Their "elite" forces are not that well trained. The US has lots of money for things like ammunition, so they can practice marksmanship all they want. The Iraqi military can barely practice piloting because the US and Brittish forces dominate the sky already. One fairly common protestor cry is "The US sanctions kill more civilians than a nuclear bomb!" So apparantly, following their logic, even if we nuke them they're still going to be better off afterwards than the sanctions, which will most certainly be lifted after we invade. Idiot.

    14. Re:GPS jamming by cranos · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously suggesting that keeping around 200 alleged terrorists locked up without due process is somehow comparable to killing 5000 civilians with chemical weapons?
      How about blanketing an entire country in poison aimed to defoliate. Or maybe selling the poison and materials to Iraq in the first place even though they knew that Saddam was not a nice guy. Or how about sponsoring rebellions in various South American nations or constantly supporting a nation who developed nuclear weapons, is known to harbour designs on its neighbours and is a known human rights violater (you guess who I am talking about).

      The US has no moral high ground here, none at all. If they had said "Yes, we screwed the pooch on this one, we're sorry now help us fix it," they might have gotten more help from the rest of the world. But instead they chose the "God Almighty is with us" route which is garuanteed to piss off people already sick of the "America is the greatest country in the world" attitude.

    15. Re:GPS jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Even without invading Iraq, the events of September 11, 2001 have made it quite clear to many in the US that we've already crossed that Rubicon, that there already exist plenty of terrorists who simply want to kill us all. We've accepted that, and have moved on to trying to minimize their ability to do so. The coldly calculating strategy of Europe is to ineffectively oppose the war, thus making others pay all the costs and take all the risks, and as a bonus avoiding notice by the terrorists. I'm certain that the next time the US is attacked in a large-scale fashion by terrorists (and we will be, independent of what happens in Iraq, it is only a matter of time...) the EU will claim that we brought it on ourselves with our war in Iraq.

      And, in a sense, we did bring it on ourselves, but we've already done so. The US support for Israel is at the root of most of the Islamic hatred toward us. Had the US not historically supported Israel, in our place I expect France and Germany would have simply let Israel's neighbors invade and kill all the Jews. That would have been a Final Solution to the whole problem.

    16. Re:GPS jamming by saforrest · · Score: 1

      And, in a sense, we did bring it on ourselves, but we've already done so. The US support for Israel is at the root of most of the Islamic hatred toward us. Had the US not historically supported Israel, in our place I expect France and Germany would have simply let Israel's neighbors invade and kill all the Jews. That would have been a Final Solution to the whole problem.

      The Europeans are no saints. But to say they would do nothing in such a case is totally unwarranted. Keep in mind that when you argue with "hypothetical genocide", you're just going to be preaching to the converted.

      Anyway, you argue that war on Iraq is necessary, whether it's just or not, in order to clean up the reprecussions of past actions (support of Israel).

      What assurances do you have that a war will clean up these reprecussions?

    17. Re:GPS jamming by Halo1 · · Score: 1
      Even without invading Iraq, the events of September 11, 2001 have made it quite clear to many in the US that we've already crossed that Rubicon, that there already exist plenty of terrorists who simply want to kill us all. We've accepted that,
      You mean GWB has accepted this chance to spew a lot of nonsense, to please his ultra-conservative supporters and to finally take revenge on Saddam and others who have been a PITA for the US since a long time.
      and have moved on to trying to minimize their ability to do so.
      The whole point of my previous post is that you are actually maximizing their ability to do by making sure the terrorist organisations get more and more supporters. You can't stop a worldwide terrorism organisation by bombing a country into oblivion or by removing a dictator from power. OTOH, you create a lot of new broken families, you give the terrorsits extra arguments against you for recruiting new victims (the US wants that Iraq follows UN resolutions, but they don't do so themselves; presenting "evidence" of Iraq weapons of mass destruction that is just as amateurishly concocted as the evidence that Microsoft presented in its anti-trust trial...)

      Terrorism can only be stopped by taking away the motivations for doing these terrible acts. You can't scare terrorists, people that go on a plane and crash it into a building are way beyond the point of being scared. They may have lost many members of their family, maybe they saw others "succumb" to the Western influences that they so despise, they see how the US gains more and more power and now even defies the UN. I mean, can't you at least slightly understand that the only thing that this war does, is give these people new reasons to hate the US? And to help them "prove" that it's the US that's lawless and that they (the terrorists) are the ones fighting the rightful battle against an oppresor? You aren't fighting terrorism, you're doing a better recruitment campaign for Al Qaeda than whatever they could setup themselves.

      And, in a sense, we did bring it on ourselves, but we've already done so.
      But you're making things only worse! This is no solution in any sense, except maybe to satisfy an urge for revenge. I mean, it's almost as if GWB is a suck puppet for Osama, making sure the latter gets new recruits...
      --
      Donate free food here
  45. this is reliable info by commodoresloat · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dude, it's from the head of a German Autoclub. The head! Not some secretary or anything.

    1. Re:this is reliable info by realnowhereman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course - I forgot that the American chiefs of staff have a strict policy of inform and consult with the German auto club.

      --
      Carpe Daemon
  46. The last Gulf War, it was the other way around... by Void · · Score: 4, Informative

    Before and after the previous Gulf War, we had S/A "jamming" by the military, resulting in "errors" of about 10 to 100m.

    During the last GW however, the US military disabled the jamming, because they were unable to produce military grade GPS receivers. They gave "normal" civilian GPS receivers to officers and disabled the jamming, thus defeating the entire purpose of the S/A system...

    This was one of the reasons they turned it off a couple of years ago.

  47. OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by kir · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Now not only do I have to sit back and watch my government join in on an illegal war. . .

    I'm not attempting to bash or ridicule you. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm just curious what a "normal" person thinks (normal being NOT a talking head on TV or in the print media). Why do you (a Brit I'm assuming) think this war is illegal?

    I've tried to talk to a few Europeans (a Brit, two French guys, and a German) about this war, but they were quickly in my face and angry. Then again, we were in a pub... and drinking... alot...

    gauthier@mindless.com if you want.
    --
    3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    1. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by crizh · · Score: 1

      Having watched most of yesterdays parliamentary debate and spent some time reading the relevent resolutions of the security council it seems quite clear to me that 1441 was not intended to allow this sort of action.

      The French and Russians insisted the phrase 'by any means necessary' be removed from 1441 before it was removed.

      1441 requires the isssue to be brought back before the security council should Iraq fail to comply. This has not happened.

      This war is not being prosecuted with the full backing of the United Nations. Just ask the Secretary General...

      On the other hand...

      Some of the argument made yesterday was particularly convincing. The point that has swung my opinion is that the war in Kosovo was undertaken illegally without UN support and nobody gives a sh*t because it was the right thing to do and has resulted in the situation in the former Yugoslavia measurably improving.

      Invading Iraq is probably the right thing to do and backing of now is definately the wrong thing to do.

      However many of us 'Brits' (puke) are extremely pis*ed of for a couple of reasons.

      1. The majority of the British people stood up in protest (largest ever demonstrations in modern times) and were completely ignored. Not a good re-election strategy...

      2. Resolution 242 still lies unenforced after something like 35 years. All this bleeding hearts guff about the plight of the Iraqi people sticks in my craw when nobody seems to give a fu*k about the plight of the Palestinians. Israel is in breach of UN resolutions and the Geneva convention and needs to be forced to comply one way or another.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you (a Brit I'm assuming) think this war is illegal?

      Firstly, because it is an act of unprovoked aggression (eg Kuwait, Falklands) and also because Kofi Annan said that it violates the UN charter. If anyone's verdict counts on this, it it his.

      NB I'm not saying that illegal == immoral, although in this case I believe it's both.

    3. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by kir · · Score: 1

      You know, I hear a lot about U.N. Resolution 242 and its not being enforced. 242 is a chapter VI resolution (chapter VI of the U.N. charter). Resolution 242's "enforcement" is actually up to the parties involved in the dispute (Palestine and Israel). The member states have no obligation to enforce it.

      The resolutions pertaining to Iraq are all (I think all) chapter VII resolutions. The member states are obliged to enforce these resolutions.

      I didn't know this until a few months ago. I never understood why 242 was never complied with and thought it rather odd that they could get away with it. Now I understand. Chapter VI resolutions are simply the U.N.'s opinion on how a dispute should be settled amongst the parties (my understanding anyway).

      BTW, I said 'Brit' out of habit, I guess. I noticed you put puke in parentheses after it. Is that bad? Should I have used Englishman or British or something else instead? Just wondering?

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    4. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Given the behaviour of the settlers and the Orwellianly named 'IDF', the member states at least have a moral obligation to see that 242 is enforced.

      I find it sickening that only one country in the region is allowed to get away with serial agression and posession of WMD - it is the behaviour of Israel and Amerikkka's constant backing for such behaviour that is behind the rise in fundamentalist terror organisations, and it gives poxy thugs like Saddam a veneer of respectability with the people of the region that the odious shit doesn't deserve.

    5. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by kir · · Score: 1
      1441 requires the isssue to be brought back before the security council should Iraq fail to comply. This has not happened.

      I went back and re-read 1441. It does say that (para. 11 and 12). However, it does not say the member states cannot enforce the resolutions as called on by resolution 678 which was recalled in 1441. Specifically - "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area. . .".

      It seems pretty clear to me that this war is legal. I guess it all depends on how one interprets it?

      Thanks for not jumping down my throat with a bunch of idiocy. A couple of ACs (go figure) below in this thread couldn't help themselves. Seriously... thanks.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    6. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by crizh · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that about the chapters. Amazing how ill informed we all are about international politics even when said politics are a manifest risk to our own lives.

      If 242 isn't chapter VII then it bloody ought to be. If Israels illegal occupation of Palestine had been ended in 1967 as Iraqs occupation of Kuwait was ended the WTC would probably still be standing.

      It amazes me how the media portrays Israels attacks on civilian Palestinians.

      If the 1st Battalion of the 227th Aviation Regiment were to fly their Apaches over residential, Catholic, areas of Belfast and start indescriminately firing UNGUIDED rockets in retaliation to Real IRA attrocities would it be reported in the same way?

      I fuc*ing doubt it.

      (BTW whoever it was that posted the link to http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html last week thank you. Always wondered what was going on there, although I fear I was happier in my ignorance, certainly less worried for my life.)

      Al Queda has ably demonstrated the sort of resolve that won Scotland its independence

      'for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'

      this is spirit that won the US its independence.

      Whether we agree with their methods or not it is undeniable that they are willing to die for freedom from perceived oppresion.

      (As a side note the techniques Bruce used during the Wars of Independence were brutal and definitely in contravention of the Geneva convention, I imagine it was little better during the American War of Independence.)

      The cause of these attacks was Israel.

      Israels flagrant disregard for international laws, treaties and opinion has placed our citizens in untimely graves. It is time Israel was put in its place. Israel is a child state and needs to be soundly spanked and sent to its room before its behaviour spirals completely out of control.

      Don't get the impression that I condone terrorism, I do not (my sister lives in Belfast), however the pragmatist in me recognises that trying to swat thousands of flies (terrorists) is futile, far more effective to remove the steaming pile of dog sh*te (Israels illegal occupation of Palestine) that is attracting them.

      As to the 'Brit' thing, I felt uncomfortable, as a Scot, lumping myself in with the English like that even though it was the appropriate way to phrase it.

      A bit like Texans don't like to be lumped in with the rest of America. Or, God forbid, calling a Canadian an American....

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    7. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by crizh · · Score: 1

      It also recalls that the ceasefire specified in 687 is conditional on Iraqi compliance with the disarmament program set out in 687.

      So assuming that Iraq is not in compliance the original war is back on.

      We don't need the security council to OK war in Iraq, technically we are still at war with Iraq and have been for 12 years.

      There has been an extended ceasefire but 1441 makes it clear that that ceasefire will end if Iraq fails to use this 'final' opportunity to comply.

      The second resolution authorising the use of force was never needed. However 1441 makes it plain that it is up to the security council to declare that Iraq is not in compliance.

      However IANAL (yet) so YMMV.

      What amazes me, in reference to 242, that this situation was allowed to continue for so long. According to 687 we should have gone back and destroyed Iraq's WMD program by force in 1998.

      The UN has clearly (here and in Kosovo) been demonstrated to be toothless. It amazes me that the original Gulf war had UN backing not that this one doesn't.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    8. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by kir · · Score: 1
      I didn't know that about the chapters. Amazing how ill informed we all are about international politics even when said politics are a manifest risk to our own lives.

      Yeah. I was spouting off one day about 242 when someone enlightened me.

      If 242 isn't chapter VII then it bloody ought to be. If Israels illegal occupation of Palestine had been ended in 1967 as Iraqs occupation of Kuwait was ended the WTC would probably still be standing.
      . . .
      The cause of these attacks was Israel.

      I agree with your sentiment on 242, but not the WTC. I used to think so, but upon further reading, I've since changed my mind. The Isreal-Palestine situation is one big fucking mess that never should have gotten this far out of control. However, no one, including the Muslim states and al Queda, gives a shit about the Palestines. It's simply a convenient banner for different groups (Muslim or not) to raise. If the Palestine conflict were resolved peacefully today (I mean Israelis and Palestines having pinics together), al Queda would still be blowing shit up. That's what they do. There is a great article about Palestine as symbol in the Jan/Feb 2003 Foriegn Affairs magazine (Page 19 - hey... I found the artcile).

      A bit like Texans don't like to be lumped in with the rest of America. Or, God forbid, calling a Canadian an American....

      Hey... I'm a Texan and my last name is Canadian-French. Damn. Am I even American? HE HE HE

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    9. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by kir · · Score: 1

      Now this is friggin cool. We apparently disagree on this war, but we're having an intelligent, CALM discussion about it. I wish this could happen a little more often. So many folks (particularly on slashdot) like to keep thing deep in the muck of stupidity and sometimes plain cruelness. Thank you. Not bad for 'Scot'!

      (Don't take that the wrong way. I just had to use 'Scot' and couldn't think of a better way. It's 2am here in Japan and I'm BEAT!)

      What amazes me, in reference to 242, that this situation was allowed to continue for so long. According to 687 we should have gone back and destroyed Iraq's WMD program by force in 1998.

      The UN has clearly (here and in Kosovo) been demonstrated to be toothless. It amazes me that the original Gulf war had UN backing not that this one doesn't.

      I couldn't agree more. If the U.N. AND their member states (inluding the U.S.) took care of business in the beginning, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Don't forget the situation in N. Korea. The U.N. won't even touch it. That SUCKS. (I keep up with this situation daily. I live in Japan and am a consultant for United States Forces Japan.)

      Your comments on 1441 are correct. But I think mine are too. So, we're just two shmucks talking about this. Imagine what a couple of International Law lawyers could do with it. I think the thing was written to appease too many damn factions. It says everything, yet it says nothing. I feel the U.S., Britian, and other supporting parties are justified... whether 'legally' or not. I've got a few friends over there and am very worried about them. I just hope that if any of them do bite it, they get it from a bullet and not VX, Anthrax, or [fill in Saddam's deadly nasty of choice].

      Man it's late. I need to go to bed. I'm not sure what it does, but I've just marked you 'friend' in my slashdot preferences.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    10. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by crizh · · Score: 1

      'al Queda would still be blowing shit up'

      You're not wrong there, interesting article.

      Trouble is Palestine is such a popular and effective rallying call to fundamentalist causes because it is an outrage.

      Really, once you have acquainted yourself with the facts of what is really going on in Palestine it is nearly impossible to be anything other than fu*king outraged.

      I can see why Mulsim youths join Hamas and al Queda, I bloody would too!

      Like I already said about firing rockets into Catholic Belfast, the PUBLIC behaviour of Israel is a disgrace, fu*k knows what they get up to behind closed doors.

      As someone else suggested I googled 'vanunu' and I'm about ready to wet myself in fear.

      The attitudes of some Orthodox Jews towards non-Jews make the Nazis look like the Boy Scouts. These are views that are popular in the Israeli military, and they are the lunatics with up to 500 nuclear warheads under their control.

      What sort of Government extorts aid from the US by threatening its neighbours with nuclear weapons?

      True al Queda will still be a pain in the arse once we kick Israel and all its illegal settlers out of Palestine but it will be a damn-sight smaller pain than it is now.

      Without Palestine as a recruiting tool these organisations will have much more trouble recruiting young men willing to die for the cause.

      BTW are you really a French-Canadian Texan?

      That would be just far too bizarre a coincidence.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    11. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by crizh · · Score: 1

      "I've just marked you 'friend'"

      Cool, I think I'll do the same.

      I posted again above before I read this.

      Kinda makes the conversation a bit disjointed, sorry.

      I've never understood the need to be nasty in these discusions. The point is not to 'win' but to learn and to inform. I cannot force you to my point of view but I can give you the opportunity to learn things that change your mind.

      I've always felt that if one is not willing to change ones opinion based on new information one should not bother taking part in debate.

      Resolution 1441, cunningly constructed by all parties to be so ambiguous that neither side can be proven to be correct.

      The 'allies' can attack Iraq and France can denounce them but neither side can be proven to be in the wrong. Kinda looks like a face saving excercise by France, saber, saber, rattle, rattle...

      My thoughts are also with your friends and with anyone else out there reading this.

      Hopefully casualties will be as small as last time or smaller (assuming friendly fire protocols have improved since last time, thats even worse than VX 'cos the families go through hell, on both sides.) and the people of Iraq will see a distinct improvement in their standard of living.

      Legal or Illegal it doesn't matter its the right thing to do. Admittedly we are ignoring many other 'right things' for whatever reasons but that doesn't make this one less right.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    12. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by kir · · Score: 1

      We're never gunna solve this problem via slashdot. We need beer... and lots of it.

      BTW are you really a French-Canadian Texan?

      That would be just far too bizarre a coincidence.

      Yep. I'm, as Texans say, a transplant (not born there) and my father's side is French-Canadian from New England (great great ... grandad was from Canada).

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    13. Re:OFFTOPIC: Re:Fantastic by kir · · Score: 1
      Hopefully casualties will be as small as last time or smaller. . .

      I think the number of friendly fire incidents will be much less this time. Some of the newer 'battle management systems' (for lack of a better phrase) are simply amazing. They can track units' locations down to battalion level. It's amazing. (I actually admin some of these on occasion.)

      Legal or Illegal it doesn't matter its the right thing to do. Admittedly we are ignoring many other 'right things' for whatever reasons but that doesn't make this one less right.

      Agreed. All countries in this world look after themselves the best. The other 'right things' in the world aren't getting the attention simply because nothing is in it for [fill in county of choice]. Perhaps someday, the Star Trek like utopia will come to pass.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
  48. All Sanity Checks by malia8888 · · Score: 1

    have bounced.

    --
    Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
  49. Like Galileo? by gotan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, it seems the US government isn't too comfortable with that and tries (german link) to make (german link) the EU abandon that project. Naturally the EU doesn't like depending on a US-monopoly for such an important system.

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  50. GPS and Nascar by LedZeplin · · Score: 1

    Ick, that would be bad for Nascar who use military grade GPS for timing and scoring their cars.

    "Woah Mark Martin appears that Mark Martin is making laps around the walmart..."

  51. But by secondsun · · Score: 2, Funny

    All you need is the nuclear missile and the 100m doesn't matter anymore.

    --
    There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
    1. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "close only counts eith horse shoes and nukes"

  52. The effect of affection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will not effect the military P code.

    Please read the usage note on this page. It's not that difficult to get right, and it makes you look smarter. Thanks.

  53. Geocaching out the window by Rovent · · Score: 1

    Well, suddenly my favourite past-time appears like it's going to be a lot more difficult.

    "How can the cache be 100 meters to the east? I'm already standing knee deep in the Atlantic Ocean!"

    1. Re:Geocaching out the window by Technician · · Score: 1

      Some of the microcaches are going to be in trouble like my Tiny cache, but others will still be fun because once you find the local area, you follow other instructions like my After Dark Cache. (my After Dark Cache can be found without a GPS. Look up the street intersection on mapquest and follow the directions) Geocaching was just becomming popular before SA was turned off. It's popularity exploded after that as the sport became much easier.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  54. Damn it! by Ageless+Stranger · · Score: 1

    And I was looking forward to geocaching this weekend!

  55. I love Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    But this being slashdot, I guess most here prefer Dick and Colin.

  56. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what if bush thinks he need a war again???
    maybe next the world resists him even more....
    he gets mad about this and decides to turn off gps for the rest of the world
    bush needs a short war (for political and economical reasons)
    and to me everything looks like a long war
    how can assure that he will not use nukes to shorten the war??????
    maybe i am just paranoiac but after someone in the bush administration said they could not rule out the use of nukes....
    i just have a very bad impression of bush and his fellows

  57. gps accuracy by wadiwood · · Score: 1

    We found out the hard way that gps is absolutely useless when it comes to telling you which road is the local station road to check windmills and which is the through road to the next town. Guess which road gets used more? No the town road aint it! And don't get any ideas about driving off road, we punctured six tyres in 3km. We could have walked faster.

    Hmm, I suppose the USA military mods will affect satellites over Australia and probably leave the ones over Iraq alone. I'm so glad the Canadians decided not to go. I'm worried for the Aussies that have. Hopefully they will factor their own error into GPS reports for the USA bombers. Hmm is that a Chinese Embassy or a TV station?

    --

    -- it must be true, it's on the internet.
  58. GPS a carrier for other systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    GPS was never really meant as a highly accurate positioning system for civilians in the first place. The GPS satellites carry what is called an NDS package or Nuclear Detonation detection System. This package uses various methods, including visible light, EMP, X-ray, and Gamma Ray sensors to locate nuclear detonations. It is this package that uses the GPS positioning most accurately because it is colocated ON the satellites themselves. Along with this, the encrypted military positioning signals are used to guide military craft and munitions to their final destinations. The civilian positioning signal is purposely less accurate than the military signal. This is, after all, a military owned and controlled system. I was in the USAF when GPS Block 2 satellites were first going up, and in a group called AFTAC (Air Force Technical Applications Center) that ran the NDS as part of the 1963 limited test ban treaty monitoring system.

    1. Re:GPS a carrier for other systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... Why do you need precision to the nearest foot or so to localize a nuclear detonation?

  59. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by jalet · · Score: 1

    > And if you're French by any chance: next time the
    > nazis are sipping cofee in Paris, I hope you ask
    > for the "inspectors to have more time". :o)

    Oh, and if Lafayette hadn't come to help save your collective asses from English tiranny, you all would still be speaking english today !

    err... wait a minute...

    --
    Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
  60. Problem with Differential GPS by maroberts · · Score: 1

    You need to broadcast those corrections to all the GPS units in the field real time, so anything broadcasting corrections is a invitation to recieve a missile double quick time.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  61. Skew the France! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Since localizing skewed GPS signals is possible... Can the US Military please make it appear to the Iraqi's, that in fact, coordinates of advancing US Forces actually appear to be coming from a country slightly to the North and to the West?

    Then, the Iraqi's can send those missiles that they "don't have" straight to their bestest pal...Jacquey-boy.

  62. Not new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This was already note here (close to Serbia/Kosovo etc) in the previous US military intervention. Some friends of mine do sailing and had already noted that their GPS devices had gone "crazy". At least this time they issued a warning (then again maybe they had warned back then, but I don't remember).

  63. Who are the losers??? by jkrise · · Score: 1

    It appears this measure would likely cause more nuisance and annoyance to Europe than Iraq. Do the Iraqis drive GPS navigated cars? Seems unlikely, given what we hear about the economy there.

    The Iraqi military is unlikely to depend on unreliable US controlled GPS data for it's own defence.

    This strategy seems like Microsoft releasing a Service Pack to quash Mozilla, in the name of fighting Opera.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  64. Try the USCG Navigation Center by Bowdie · · Score: 3, Informative

    For all your GPS news and status.

    http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/default.htm

    --
    yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
    1. Re:Try the USCG Navigation Center by Bowdie · · Score: 1

      Or even www.peterson.af.mil/GPS_Support

      sorry about replying to my own posts.

      --
      yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
  65. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by EnlightenmentFan · · Score: 1
    To generalize this point--we need to build in redundancy for any systems that someone could decide to switch on-and-off at will. If Bush can decide whether GPS works or not, GPS is unreliable. (What next, no GPS for France?)

    Similarly, the US government is building more of its own non-web internets to protect itself during DDOS attacks. Once the government is no longer a potential victim of DDOS attacks, a shut-down of the Internet could become yet another useful wartime tool.

    --
    Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
  66. Here's what the military says on this topic by north.coaster · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Here's what the US military has to say about this.

    The reality is that in the time period since S/A was turned off many businesses have become dependent on the GPS. If S/A were to be turned back on worldwide, then that would provide one more reason to oppose the war. COnsidering the current political climate, both in the US and worldwide, I can't see this happening.

    1. Re:Here's what the military says on this topic by toddhisattva · · Score: 1
      if S/A were to be turned back on worldwide, then that would provide one more reason to oppose the war. COnsidering the current political climate, both in the US and worldwide, I can't see this happening.

      Or it might remind the ungrateful morons of all the great things the United States has done for the World.

  67. Boat Navigation by Scooby71 · · Score: 1

    If civilian GPS is degraded outside the Gulf region it's going to affect boats.

    SCUBA divers going wreck diving would be affected - it can be hard enough to find a wreck if it isn't bouyed using GPS without introducing an error factor of 100m-300m.

    Have pleasant memories of using a GPS unit as a giant etch-a-sketch on a RIB with twin 80 horsepower outboards. (I know, not responsible but fun)

  68. This was discussed a few weeks back by CharlieG · · Score: 4, Informative

    This has been discussed before.

    Look at

    http://www.igeb.gov/sa.shtml

    They say it will NEVER be turned back on

    also see

    http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/

    --
    -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
  69. They've got it backwards by daves · · Score: 1

    In the last Gulf War, they turned off SA so that the commercial units all of the soldiers had bought would know where the minefields were.

    ...or was it Bosnia?

    --
    People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
  70. Not a Good Idea by ShwAsasin · · Score: 1

    That is a terrible idea. The military should be able to defeat Iraq without having to reduce GPS signals. This will impact where I work because we make agricultural navigation systems for aircraft. Try explaining to a family that we sprayed chemicals to kill weeds on their house and see how happy they'll be.

    1. Re:Not a Good Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, let me get this right. Your pilots don't actually look where they are spraying? Derived from your "we sprayed chemicals" comment.

      Perhaps you are spraying at 20,000 feet and can't see the houses?

      Perhaps I need to contact the FDA or someone to get that operation shut down.

  71. Haven't they been doing this all along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was a pilot for a number of years in the states and we allways had a problem with SA (we called it spoofing back then). One of the largest battels the aviation public had to fight was to have the SA turned off so we could use GPS aidded instrument approaches. When SA was on it kind of sucked because you could only navigate to the station and then take over on non-GPS instruments.

    One intresting point in particular, was a group of Aviators in Oklahoma who developed an anti-spoofing hack for airports. As the VOR terminal is set at a fixed position and emmits a radio signal they surveyed the accurate lat/long for the station and modified the emmiter to check the current GPS defined location of the station and adjust for the float in the SA. This data was transmitted to the aircraft for use by the pilots in correcting for SA on there GPS instruments. At one point the FAA actually looked into funding modifications for all VORs in the states. Nothing like paying tax money to one organization to spoof the signal and the other to un-spoof it.

    Anyway, happy to be an expat right now.

  72. Well, no worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We here in Africa have our own GPS. You run around and ask your friends where you are. It's acurate to about 4 friends, but does not work that well on weekends.

  73. More European Bullshit by smack.addict · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is just some yellow journalist trying to get support for the stupid Galileo concept. It has been widely reported that the government intends no such thing. The only impact of the war on GPS will be reduced availability in the theater of war.

  74. Is this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...The same twit who set the cruise control on his large RV and got up from the driver's seat to make breakfast?

  75. Aviation? by Whispers_in_the_dark · · Score: 1

    How much will this affect civilian aviation now that it has allowed some dependence on GPS for instrument approach? I haven't been around the aviation world for a few years but I'm hoping that instrument rated private planes still require the more traditional VOR/approach equipment.

  76. GlobalSecurity.org has an interesting file on this by Nyght_shadow · · Score: 3, Informative

    GlobalSecurity.org has posted an interesting FAQ on the war and GPS. It's located here . It was written by Richard B. Langley from the Dept. of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering at the University of New Brunswick. It's a good read and answers a lot of questions about GPS and general and possible routes the military can use.

    --Nyght--

  77. motherfucker by Whalephant · · Score: 0

    free speech bla bla bla, but stop telling everyone that you are from Finland. Otherwise people will start noticing what we really are: bunch of autistic wankers.

  78. The EU is all about committees and standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People mistake process and standards for action. That's why the EU will never be a serious economic threat to anybody but themselves.

    They're busy "inventing" ISO9000 and the Tawainese make ever motherboard in the world.

    Great. Game over.

  79. Will my car GPS navigator still work? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Or will i end up driving to Iraq instead of the pizza place? I don't think this will affect stuff that much. 100 yards is still pretty close.

    --
    stuff |
  80. SA will never be turned back on by ahess247 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It has been the policy of the Interagency GPS Board that Selective Availability would never be turned back on, mainly because there are so many civilian users the rely on the more accurate signal since it was turned off. It would be a huge public relations blunder for the government if it did.

    But before SA was turned off, the Air Force had to develop a capability called "Selective Deniability" that would allow it to alter the accuracy of GPS signals over designated theater of operations. I seriously doubt that SA will be re-enabled systemwide.

    Someone on a listserv I belog to send the URL of this PDF dated 13 March, 2003 that adddresses some of those questions. The URL is http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/rep ort/2003/iraq-and-gps_faq.pdf.

  81. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by realnowhereman · · Score: 1

    I don't remember American aid during that war having been conditional on agreeing with America on every subject from then until the end of time.

    It is fairly awful to expect that because you help someone they then are your slave forever. Your help may not be required if those are the conditions.

    --
    Carpe Daemon
  82. They don't like it, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The Europeans won't do anything about it for a couple of reasons:

    1) Europeans are uncomfortable committing funds to anything except social welfare programs.

    2) Europeans are dreadfully uncomfortable with taking initiative and leading.

    3) But most importantly, nobody in continental Europe really gives a crap except what's pleasurable this week.

    How can a GPS system possible pass this muster?

    1. Re:They don't like it, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pls mod parent up it is insightful

  83. Using the P code by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Informative

    While it's hard/impossible to obtain a receiver that can directly use the P code, it IS possible for a civilian receiver to use the encrypted P code for additional accuracy without decrypting it.

    The civilian C/A codes are only broadcast on one frequency. Both the C/A and P codes are pseudorandom bit sequences designed to have a very high peak in their self-correlation function. (Effectively turning the CW transmitters on the satellites into high-power pulse transmitters as far as SNR requirements at the receiver.) The encrypted P code has a much lower peak in its self-correlation function, but it STILL has a peak.

    The C/A code is only broadcast on one frequency, while the P code is broadcast on two frequencies. Why? Because one of the leading sources of error in GPS reception when SA is turned off is the fact that the ionosphere delays the signal. Fortunately, the ionospheric delay is a linear function of the frequency. (I.e. a signal at 1.7 GHz is delayed 1.7/1.2 times as much as a signal at 1.2 GHz). So, a military receiver can measure the delay between the two frequencies, and from that calculate the ionospheric delay.

    Now go back to the fact that even the encrypted code has a peak in its self-correlation function. A high-end civilian (usually surveying) receiver can receive the encrypted P-codes and correlate them (since they happen to be identical). Since the self-correlation peak of the encrypted code is much lower, the signal strength must be higher than that for unencrypted codes and the process is SLOW, but it can be done. Receivers capable of this cost $$$$$$. (For example, in the GPS lab at Cornell University, they have only 1-2 dual-frequency receivers, while they have plenty of single-frequency receivers on ISA cards to allow for advanced postprocessing of data.)

    As far as SA - Even when SA is on, it's possible to get millimeter accuracy from a civilian receiver, using the same techniques needed to get millimeter accuracy from a civilian receiver with SA off. The most important thing is a "reference receiver" nearby - One whose location is precisely known. This receiver can measure all of the errors generated by the satellites, which can be used later to postprocess the data from a remote receiver and correct it.

    In addition to clock dithering, SA puts errors in the satellite ephemerides (The description of their orbits). It's possible to download precise (even better than non-SA) ephemerides from various standards organizations for post processing.

    Want to try post-processing yourself? Until recently, the answer was "tough luck" with the exception of expensive receivers and the Delorme Earthmate. Only the Earthmate allowed the user to capture raw pseudorange data (The data needed to obtain a navigation fix) for later processing. Fortunately, some people found out that it was possible to obtain pseudorange data from 12-channel Garmin civilian receivers by using some undocumented commands. See http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dmilbert/softs/g12ri n.htm and http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/iessg/gringo/

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Using the P code by gklyber · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There is a nice description of using the P code in the March 2003 NASA Tech Briefs. There is a link to the article on this page and this direct link. Free registration required.

      The method described does some signal conversion to extract useful information from the P code even when the A code (encryption) is not known. It uses an approximation of the A code and summing over time to extract useful information.

    2. Re:Using the P code by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Right. Here is a link to some software that does just that.

      http://www.leica-geosystems.com/gps/product/ski- pr o.htm

    3. Re:Using the P code by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      The most important thing is a "reference receiver" nearby - One whose location is precisely known.

      Actually, the only requirement is that the reference receiver isn't moving. It needs to know only approximately where it is -- a stand-alone fix, even with SA turned on, is more than adequate. You can then measure the apparent position of other known points to correct for the error in reference receiver position later.

  84. Wrong-o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no separate satellites around the middle east.

    GPS sats are LEO (Low Earth Orbit). The sat that is above your head right now will be looking down on Saddam's bald patch in 45 minutes. And back again in another 45 mins. (Simplified of course; Earth's rotation will put the orbit at a different place on each rotation.)

    If that sat has selective access above Iraq, it'll have selective access above you.

    (AFAIK there is no mechanism to turn SA on/off for each half-orbit, but that should be a simple matter of programming...?)

  85. Differential GPS by grundie · · Score: 1

    The site of the Commisioner of Irish Lights has a very good 101 on Differential GPS for those who are interested.

    1. Re:Differential GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a very good 101 on..

      What the frell is a 101?

      You mean "introduction?" Why don't you just speak english like any decent person.

  86. I don't see the logic ... by fygment · · Score: 1

    ... in messing up Iranian GPS users (read: military). It would just make their movements more chaotic. Contrary to what you might think, a predictable enemy is far better than one who's actions defy reason. And all their missles have either inertial navigation, IR homing, or are ballistic so it's not like you're mucking up any precision guided equipment.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    1. Re:I don't see the logic ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Apparently the US military should check with you next time, just to make sure they have all the facts...


      "I'm picking up your sarcasm..."
      "Well I should hope so. I'm laying it on pretty thick."

  87. What about WAAS? by n1ywb · · Score: 2, Informative

    For those who aren't familiar with WAAS, it's the Wide Area Augmentation System. It's like DGPS on speed. It's run by the FAA. They have a dozen receiving location scattered around the country, at precisely surveyed locations. They measure the difference between where the GPS satelite says they are, and where they actualy are, and then transmit that information to geostationary satelites, which then beam the info back to earth. In a nutshell you get 3m GPS accuracy.

    AFAIK there is no provision for reducing the accuracy of WAAS without just turning it off. The FCC would really like to use WAAS to enable planes to do instrument landings at airports without ILS. Of course the FAA can just turn it off anytime...

    WAAS works great though. I've left my GPS on auto-detailed track mode, and I've inadvertantly created a highly accurate map of my campus just by walking around with my GPS in my pocket :)

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
    1. Re:What about WAAS? by Oswald · · Score: 2, Informative
      The Area of the Service is Wide, but only by comparison to the Local Area Augmentation Service(LAAS). It doesn't include Iraq.

      As for leaving it on to help in the U.S., the system is not yet certified for aviation.

      Here's a page that says basically the same things.

  88. Another URL by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Finally found the URL for the one utility I've used (Although haven't yet gotten my postprocessing code to work with it - The RINEX file is different enough from the ones recorded in CU's ECE 415 lab that the preprocessor chokes on it.)

    http://artico.lma.fi.upm.es/numerico/miembros/an to nio/async/

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  89. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by pubjames · · Score: 1

    Yes, we all know how well European bureaucracies compete with American ingenuity... X.500 anyone?

    The web, anyone?

  90. Re:Gosh..,. by dick+johnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh Yeah. I forgot. The Europeans have always done such a good job cleaning up.

    Kosovo. Thousands of innocents murdered in their own backyard, but they're incapable of bringing themselves to do the right thing, until the U.S. steps in.

    Or, perhaps that failure was just a lack of European intestinal fortitude.

    It's so typically European. They'd rather have stable despots than the liberation of millions of people. This isn't only a recent development.

    The cowardly response to the above will be that stability is better than chaos where millions may starve.

    But that's a position that is could only be held by people who've been protected for the last 50 years by the American Taxpayer. A people, I might add, that have for several decades now not known what it's like to live in fear of tyranny.

    How many hundreds of trillions of dollars have Americans spent to maintain the current European lifestyle? This is money that was spent on European defense, but ultimately, allowed the Europeans to neglect their own defense spending and focus on domestic needs.

    The only reason western Europe has the luxuary of looking down its nose at the U.S. today is that they've essentially been a collection of welfare states of the United States for the last half century.

    I for one hope we bring an end to that situation very, very soon. Let the Germans and French worry about their own security. And if the Russian experiment with democracy fails, let's see how critical these same people will be of America then.

    Britain aside, NATO has become nothing more than a Welfare program for Western Europe. We stand by them when the Russians are at the door. But where are these folks when we tell them we need them? It's a one-way relationship. One that the American people need to reexamine.

    The very threat of military retaliation by the United States allowed western Europe to remain free during the cold war.

    Let's see how the European economies do when they have to increase their portion of defense spending, to offset the end of American subsidies. (The only reason European countries have been able to spend so little of their Gross Domestic Product on defense these past five or six decades)

    Europeans complain of "The American Empire," as a previous post put it. But I for one would love to see a time arise when my country could go back to being an isolationist one. But ultimately, the same spineless folks who complain about the U.S. today, will be the same ones clamoring for our help tomorrow.

    It reminds me of something the comedian David Letterman said after the fall of the Berlin Wall. He had a list of the top 10 things the French were doing to prepare for German reunification.

    Number one was "Practicing Blowing kisses while marching backwards."

    -dj

    --
    - dj
  91. Simply does not matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    1) Unless you're using GPS for something like surveying (you aren't. admit it.), this doesn't matter. If you can't navigate while hiking/biking/driving/flying/boating with 300 feet of accuracty, then you suck, and you shouldn't be doing it anyway.

    2) Are you telling me Iraq needs more than ~100 meters of accuracy to make their attempt at defense? "hmm...I know that gasoline-filled trench was around here somewhere...hmm...where should i drop my torch...duh...."

    Come on.

    1. Re:Simply does not matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yep I can see it now...

      "Honey, it told me to turn left here. We're on 4th St. We are supposed to be on 5th St. Damn the government. DAMN THEM FOR TURNING ON S/A!!!"

      "Didn't you see the sign?"

      "I was on the phone. Besides, that SUV blocked my view."

    2. Re:Simply does not matter by scheming+daemons · · Score: 1
      I'm using it for golf.

      (skygolfgps.com)

      If the accuracy is off by 100 meters or more, my handicap is going up.

      ;)

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

  92. GPS Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as of 1430 GMT 19 March 2003 I am getting 10 meter accuracy on a Garmin emap GPS receiver

  93. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by eurostar · · Score: 1

    Better the US send back the statue of liberty that the French gave them,
    They don't appear to need it any more.

    "Liberty" to the Bush administration just means the liberty to extend the holy USian empire by beating the shit out of whoever doesn't agree.

  94. Half the story, one day late! by Stephan+Peter · · Score: 2, Informative

    As heise already reported yesterday a US spokesman at the EU denied that the US would anything mentioned above.

  95. Conspiracy theorists should NOT submit to /. by EriktheGreen · · Score: 5, Informative

    See (lazy me, cut and paste from a google news post):

    http://www.igeb.gov/sa.shtml
    http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/selective_availabil ity.htm
    https://www.peterson.af.mil/GPS_Support/documents/ gps_pdd.htm
    http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/FGCS/info/sans_SA/docs/GPS _SA_Event_QAs.pdf

    In short, NO, they won't degrade GPS.

    I dunno what's more disappointing, that some lamer submitted this to slashdot, or that more of you supposedly "Educated" geeks don't challenge the idea.

    Erik

    1. Re:Conspiracy theorists should NOT submit to /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>I dunno what's more disappointing, that some lamer submitted this to slashdot, or that more of you supposedly "Educated" geeks don't challenge the idea.

      Yeah but it provides a great opportunity to villify the US and beat our European chests over how we can do the same thing 15 years later, if only the Pentagon got their noses out of our business (whose ass was protected by said Pentagon since 1945).

  96. We're sorry... by the_real_tigga · · Score: 1, Troll

    US-Army: We're terribly sorry, but unfortunately it has already been more than ten years since be bombed some brown people, so we will have to render our service unuseable for an unspecified amount of time.

    Sorry, field-science, sorry, maritime travel and transportation, sorry you folks out there in the Sahara, Australian Outback or South-American rainforest. sorry Mercedes-Benz, sorry Motorola, sorry air-travel, you shouldn't be flying anyway during terror-level orange.

    --
    my .sig is better than yours.
  97. So how is the parent or grandparent offtopic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you want to know why conservatives dominate talk radio? It's because you can't just "mod down" callers.

  98. *Takes a deep breath and dives into off-topic* by goldcd · · Score: 1

    Whilst I would love to be a pacifist, I accept the fact that war should always remain an option to be threatened and used as a last resort. I am not a secret admirer of Sadam, nor do would I in any way want to hinder the human rights of the Iraqi people - I'd probably be quite happy to support a military attempt to overthrow him - I just don't trust the motives behind what's about to happen. The official line is obviously a lie, and if we aren't being told the truth, it's a pretty safe assumption to say we therefore wouldn't like it if we did. US foreign policy is a complete disgrace, packed with double standards and has managed to amass such a level of distaste from the majority of the planet it has left pretty much the entire planet with a gut instinct to resist it at every opportunity. If anybody fancies some topical reading on the previous US policy of support for those who reported and provided proof of nuclear weapons existance in the middle east try Googling for Mordechai Vanunu

  99. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it that all of a sudden people seem to be talking like the US fought WWII out of charity to Europe? For those that might have forgotten, the US didn't liberate France out of the kindness of their hearts, they did it because they were at war with Germany and stood to gain by containing them.

    And for those that might have forgotten, France helped the US gain its freedom in the first place. So when people start talking about "freedom fries", they sound like complete fools.

  100. From source rather than a German Auto Club by jesus_watkins · · Score: 2, Informative
    It might pay to find out what the group that manages GPS thinks rather than a German Auto Club.

    The Interagency GPS Executive Board (IGEB) was established in 1996 by a Presidential directive to manage the Global Positioning System (GPS) and its U.S. Government augmentations. The IGEB is a senior-level policy making body co-chaired by the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation.

    The IGEB have a statement on their website about Selective Availability.

    GPS Selective Availability (SA) has not been used since its deactivation by the President on May 1, 2000. At that time, the United States Government stated that it has no intent to ever use SA again. There has been no change in this policy.

    Of course they could change this policy, but for the moment it looks like SA will not be turned on.

  101. Rumor has it... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    that the US turned off SA in the first place to neuter the Galileo project by reducing its perceived need.

    Well, the second time the US turned SA off was for that reason.

    This article is really amusing because of the fact that the government actually turned SA OFF for the last Gulf War, as there was a shortage of military GPS receivers and soldiers were ordering civilian units mail-order.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Rumor has it... by UberLame · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Wall Street Journal was recently reporting that many soldiers are feeling over weighted with stuff to carry, so they are resorting to chucking all MRE items that aren't particularly high in carbs, and tossing the GI GPS units for civilian ones that use the same batteries as their headsets to reduce the different types of batteries that must be carried in the field. I'd imagine that such soldiers would be rather disappointed if they had to go back. According to the article, the Army is aware that this is happening. This article appeared about a month ago.

      --
      I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me.
    2. Re:Rumor has it... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      tossing the GI GPS units for civilian ones that use the same batteries as their headsets to reduce the different types of batteries that must be carried in the field. I'd imagine that such soldiers would be rather disappointed if they had to go back. According to the article, the Army is aware that this is happening.

      I wonder if they'll actually turn of SA just for handheld GPS units. The real importance is GPS and precision guided munitions (and denying your enemy free guidance data). I don't know how much accuracy they really depend on for land navigation. When I was in the Gulf, the common perception of the GPSs seemed to be that they were handy, but nobody was positioning themselves based solely on that data. I was in the army from '87-'91 though, so they may very well have "integrated" GPS into their battle planning.
      [OldManVoice}
      Back in my day, we navigated the battlefield with a map and compass! Didn't need no batteries fer nuthin! 'cept maybe that dang old PRC-77, but it had batteries the size of a .50 ammo can and they weighed 40 pounds! oh, but we were THANKFUL! Our forefathers had batteries the size of a HUMMER and they weighed 200 pounds!
      [/OldManVoice]

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    3. Re:Rumor has it... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      1) Does anyone else use GPS guided munitions? I can't believe the Iraqis have that level of technology.

      2) I've never been in the military, but I would have to guess that a 100 meter error is the difference between firing artillery over your troops and onto the enemy and putting artillery into your own troops. As you said, there are older methods that worked fine. But if troops are under fire, they may not be thinking about double checking their position.

      -B

    4. Re:Rumor has it... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Does anyone else use GPS guided munitions? I can't believe the Iraqis have that level of technology.

      I reckon the germans, french, and a select few of our allies have it, but that's probably it. Given a cruise missile and a civilian gps, though, I bet even I could whip up a simple microcontroller setup integrating them. But with SA, such activities are discouraged.

      I've never been in the military, but I would have to guess that a 100 meter error is the difference between firing artillery over your troops and onto the enemy and putting artillery into your own troops. As you said, there are older methods that worked fine. But if troops are under fire, they may not be thinking about double checking their position.

      good point. when I was in the army GPS was still pretty new so all artillery fire was done the "old way": they fire a few rounds dialed in well beyond friendly positions just to be safe and the units calling for the fire would radio back corrections to adjust the fire onto the enemy. They may use GPS now to bring those first rounds in closer. I bet they still err on the side of caution though and depend on FO's calling in corrections.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  102. Indeed by goldcd · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    A friend of mine is heavily involved in the EU satellite program (building them). Not only are we going to be getting non-US global positioning, we're also getting some other very clever satellites loaded with all sorts of clever gizmos which we're not allowed to talk about without our families being abducted in the middle of the night. Will help us spot the little errors that sometimes arise from US satellite intelligence e.g. "Oh look, we can see several hundred thousand Iraqi troops on your [Saudi Arabia] border - can we base our troops there to protect your oil fields population?

  103. They've planned for this by Dont+tempt+me · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the FAA air traffic simulator where I work, we have recently done studies preparing for what would happen if the GPS satellites were disabled (on purpose or jammed from a terrorist). NATCA (the controllers union) has developed procedures for what to do when this happens. Most aircraft would fall back to their backup navigation systems, assuming such systems would work on the route they were currently on. Less than 2% would even need attention, and it would be minor intrusion at that -- just enough to get then to where they can fly on their own. Even in the future, when some of the current systems are removed, it won't be much more of a problem.

    So you can feel just as safe flying as you currently do ;)

    --
    ----- I hate sigs.
  104. Is this worldwide or only in Europe/Middle East by CatOne · · Score: 1

    Help me a bit here -- I believe GPS satellites are geosynchronous which would mean there are many "parked" over the US -- would it be possible to "fuzz up" the ones the Iraqis would use, but leave them at a higher level of accuracy in the US? I mean my friends who geocache will have a whole extra level of work if they decrease the accuracy to 100 meters... and I might take a wrong turn on the way to a restaurant. Better start protesting the war ;-)

    1. Re:Is this worldwide or only in Europe/Middle East by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      they are not geosynchronous. (exception: The WAAS satelites are; but there are only a couple).
      The majority (25+) pass overhead a twice in 24.x hrs (I think it is a 12hr orbit, not positive.)

  105. Precision Ag by Tsu-na-mi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I for one couldn't care less if hikers' GPS accuracy is reduced to 100m, but for the industry I work in (Precision Agriculture), this presents a huge problem. Many of our clients used DGPS back in the day, and in some areas where it is freely available (along the coast, mostly), still do. However, most do not. 3m was already bad enough, but 100m is a real problem. I'm sure there are other industries being affected by the use of SA as well.

    --
    I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego
  106. Interesting comparison by jkj5301 · · Score: 1

    I'm currently reading "The Measure of All Things/The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error That Transformed the World", by Ken Alder. It's about the effort during the French revolution to measure the distance from the pole to the equator as the basis for the standard meter. There are some interesting parallels with this GPS discussion, especially the parts about taking triangulations among the castles and forts on both sides of the French/Spanish frontier in the Pyrenees, while the battles were going on all around. Mechain, one of the astronomers, was able to determine some locations within one second of arc, or 100 feet -- in 1793! Who needs GPS?

  107. isn't 100 metres enough?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sureley for basic navigation 100 metres is still more than sufficient for the Iraqi army to stop themselves getting lost. Thats if they actually have any GPS units.

  108. fp this is a test fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow...the left wing enforcers are out today! If you're going to mod me down, please do me a favor and wait 30 seconds, okay?

    This is a test fp fp fp fp

  109. Get the hell off the road please. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    People like you shouldn't be driving. The GPS is merely a navigational aid. It doesn't and never should replace KEEPING YOUR EYES ON THE GODDAMNED ROAD. You shouldn't need a GPS to tell you that you're on Foo Avenue - You should be looking at Foo Avenue and double checking that you're on Foo Avenue using these really cool devices called street signs.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Get the hell off the road please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me, or does "Andy Dodd" need a chill pill? Dude, get laid or smoke some weed... damn.

    2. Re:Get the hell off the road please. by sxpert · · Score: 1

      using these really cool devices called street signs.
      seems that some cities in the states don't know what these are ;-)

    3. Re:Get the hell off the road please. by ajs · · Score: 1

      You're not from New England.

      You've never done any serious amount of driving in New England.

      This isn't a wild guess as you might think, it's based on the fact that no one outside NE can get their heads wrapped around the utter stupidity that is our near-total lack of street signs (except for major roads, and even then, cross-streets are rarely labled.

      See, I told you you wouldn't buy it. It's just so mind-numbingly stupid that no right-thinking person who doesn't live here can accept it without seeing.

      There's a historical reason, of course. In World War II, the east coast took down most street signs so that -- don't laugh -- if the Germans invaded, they wouldn't know where they were. Ironically, it was the same basic mentality as disabling GPS.

      After the war, most communities put their signs back, but because New England roads are, on average, so short and even change names frequently, the cost would have been astronomical. So, the states only funded putting "essential" signs back.... the expenditure model stuck...

      Go easy on people who need a GPS to know what street they're on. In NE, it might be all you have :-/

  110. Crazy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    Ok, I realize that some of you are not American or British writing this comments, but don't you see that if the Americans were to do this, it would be for the sole purpose of saving lives and lessening casualties in the war? Or do people actually believe that Sadaam Hussein is a nice guy that has the best interests of his people at heart?



    The inconvenience this might cause some people is worth it. Read some history and realize some of the inconvenience citizens had to tolerate in previous wars. This GPS thing is trite.

  111. Just jam the civilian frequency by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Admittedly, there IS some military data on the civilian frequency, but it's more than possible for the military to get a decent fix if the frequency that carries civilian data is jammed.

    The P code is broadcast on two frequencies. This allows the receiver to measure and correct for ionospheric delay, but also allows the military to gain a fix even if one frequency is jammed, at a precision slightly better than that of the unjammed civilian code but worse than normal for military use.

    Also, I've read that military receivers are much harder to jam. Most likely the P code is transmitted at higher power, and also military receivers can use a phased-array antenna and some DSP power to reject noise sources not in the direction of a satellite.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  112. Re:That's what you get for relying.... by Nihilanth · · Score: 1

    the same is true of the highway system and the internet, you know.

  113. Polacks, Niggers, and Blondes: oh my by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    RE: In other news today...
    John R. Smith, of Peoria (Ill.) drove his brand-new SUV


    As somebody else pointed out, this actaully happened in Germany. But the vehicle was a car, not an S.U.V.

    Not that I really care. Not being the P.C. type, I think it's OK to make fun of Polacks, niggers, blondes, Jews, sand-monkeys, and S.U.V. drivers.

    I'm just curious why the original author of the joke had to make the vehicle an S.U.V., when it's not relevant to the punchline at all. I see a lot of anti-S.U.V.-owner stuff like this, but it's usually from people who would be upset at off-color jokes. This is just another example of a stereotypical bias that has pervaded our culture, without the author probably being aware of it.
  114. They can do it unplanned. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    SA was turned off less than three years ago.

    Do you realize how long it takes from the initial design stages to general use for a commercial jetliner? A helluva lot longer than three years. Hell, I don't think a jetliner could even get FAA certification in three years from the first prototypes being built.

    In short: AIRPLANES HAVE BACKUPS. GPS is currently considered to be the least reliable nav source, precisely because the military can kill the system or enable SA any time they want to. Pilots are required to be able to navigate without GPS and using their eyes only. If you can't navigate based on visual info alone, you don't get your license. Similarly, you don't get your IFR certification unless you can use all of the standard instrumentation that was in use long before GPS became common.

    Also, most likely almost any aeronautical GPS will support some form of DGPS, which makes SA semi-irrelevant. As soon as SA turns on, it will be a matter of seconds before updated DGPS info starts coming through. (This is assuming that SA isn't turned on gradually. It most likely will be, in which case users of DGPS in one form or another won't notice a thing.) Locally, the Coast Guard broadcasts DGPS at VLF frequencies in localized areas, and modern Garmins support WAAS, which is a DGPS variant that uses non-military geostationary satellites to broadcast the corrections.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  115. Before more people have heart attacks... by Xformer · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to this article, nothing needs to be done to the satellites at all. Jammers can be deployed to scramble civilian GPS signals over a localized area.

    After all, when's the last time you've seen a GPS receiver with a dish antenna? Ground-based signals can logically affect them just as easily as sky-based.

    --
    All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
  116. WAAS by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some Garmin receivers already support WAAS, which is a DGPS variant that uses data from geostationary satellites.

    Kinda of hard to knock those out...

    Also, terrestrial DGPS is not likely to be targeted by a missle for use in the USA.

    DGPS isn't too expensive - Almost any civilian GPS receiver can apply the corrections if they are supplied, and receivers for the Coast Guard broadcasts are only $150-200 I believe. (And have been homebrewed for less.) If you have some form of wireless internet connection, do a search for dgps-ip - Essentially RTCM correction data that can be obtained by connecting to a port on a dgpsip server.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  117. Re:Let's cut off our noses by Oswald · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I don't understand. How is it paranoid to think that your enemy in war may want to kill you? How is it idiotic to deprive them of a useful tool?

    This article says that the DOD has better ways to achieve this end, so you can stop crying. But, if degrading the signal worldwide were the only way to degrade it for the Iraqi military, they would be correct to do so.

  118. What's a "metresfeet"??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't have any problem at all navigating in my SUV with the on-board GPS not working. I'll just call somebody up on my handheld cellphone to give me directions while I drive, since I never look out the windshield to see where I'm going anymore anyway so it don't matter

  119. Turning on SA everywhere? by __aaklbk2114 · · Score: 1

    One of the reasons they decided to turn off SA in the first place was that they had the capability to enable it regionally if needed IIRC.

    So, couldn't they just dither the signal for Iraq/Middle East and leave everyone else with high accuracy?

  120. U.S. May Reduce Non-Military GPS Accuracy by videokef · · Score: 0

    First of all, Iraqi army is a bunch of dilettantes.
    Would not use GPS since they weren't trained to use it and rely on their own maps.

    Second, as far as I remember Russian T9X tanks would not use US GPS satellites and would rely strictly on Soviet based systems. (logically we would not make tanks that rely US technology)
    that could be disrupted by a flip of a switch!

    Third, I don't think that Russia would want to sell the most recent models of tanks since it has latest technology secrets "Even I don't know what they have now in those models" it's not even shown to us - Russian engineers.

    American GPS Satellites are downgraded probably to prevent Terrorist attacks such as 911
    because GPS device vas used by those as#h@les to navigate an airplane.
    there are many other things that civilian gps could be used for on US soil.

    I think that Military has all rights to downgrade or shut down the system without asking us.
    "We are paying our taxes to military so they can provide security of the nation. not to use their technology" don't ask those guys if you can borrow their M16 or some nuke to warm up your room. same thing with the satellites.

    I may be wrong about this but we are lucky that we got access to GPS at the first place.

    vsem pruvet !

  121. This may not be such a good idea. by abelenky17 · · Score: 1

    From what I've heard, many ground-pounding grunts much prefer civilian gear to the military issue stuff their given by headquarters. Can't say I blame them either. Have you seen a Gov. Issue gps device, nearly the size of a small phonebook, vs. a commercially available one that fits in the palm of your hand. I was at REI yesterday, near a military base, when a small squad came in, and wanted to outfit their whole group. The REI salesman tells me that has been common during the military buildup. Many soldiers want sleeping bags, GPS, binoculars, etc. So, while I'm sure a ground unit is required to have a Goverment GPS device when he goes into battle, I wouldn't be too surprised if they carry around smaller, better, commercial devices, and prefer to use them. Degrading the signal used by those devices could possibly lead to serious errors and maybe even cost lives! Just my opinion, as I know little-to-nothing about military ops. -ABelenky17

  122. It'll never get off the ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " A friend of mine is heavily involved in the EU satellite program (building them)"

    Europe will wring its hands for 10 more years, put 4 satellites in orbit, they'll lose interest (it costs money), they'll charge every user for it, and in the end, once the 4th satellite fails, that will be the end of the system.

    Typical.

    It'll be another bad consortium like Airbus or Arianne.

  123. Sure... by ward99 · · Score: 2, Informative
    t just depends what you're using the GPS data for. For most people in cars, it shouldn't be too bad (even though I can think of some times when directions from my GPS came within seconds of when I was supposed to be hitting a off ramp. That 100-300 meters would mean I missed it). If you're using the GPS for location-aware technology, like AnnotatedEarth, then you're more likely to have a problem (as that technology is all about what's really close).

    It'll be interested to see if they actually turn SA back on or not. And if they do, will it be world-wide or can they really selectively turn regions off? Of course, as you want to hit 3+ satellites at a time, that will still effect a lot more that Iraqi. For example, right now Salman Pak (Iraqi Bio-war site) can see:

    GPSBIIA-16(PRN01) GPSBIIA-25(PRN03) GPSBIIR-03(PRN11) GPSBIIR-06(PRN14) GPSBIIR-04(PRN20) GPSBIIA-12(PRN25)

    Turning SA on these 6 Satellites would screw up GPS in Iraqi - and a large portion of that hemisphere.

  124. Probably already happening... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    www.faa.gov has already got NOTAMs posted regarding inaccurate GPS readings and not to rely solely on GPS for IFR flight.

  125. Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " There are plans for building a similar system to GPS in Europe so that we are not too much depending on the american empire"

    The Europeans will spend 25 years coming up with an ISO standard.

    And then they'll simply be too "exhausted" to do the actual work.

    The only thing the EU is building that I care about is a nice new shiny set of legos. And even those are overpriced.

  126. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by Zone-MR · · Score: 1

    I personally believe that Iraq should be dealt with now rather than later when they may have acquired a lot more capacity for mass destruction. I understand that you may dissagree with war - that is another topic alltogether. Strictly speaking we were talking about the concept of America using the GPS systems to its advantage during a situation of war. To me this seems like a techologically sly and clever approach. Its not a matter of "hey, lets turn off GPS to piss off the world".

    While I want to avoid a political discussion, it is worth noting that most of Europe (including the UK where I live) support the war. Admittedly there are variations in opinion, but I believe Germany and France are the only two main protesters. If we were to have a European GPS system, do you really believe during a war its owners would allow it to help Iraq?

  127. They do, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So when people start talking about "freedom fries", they sound like complete fools."

    Exactly what we've been saying about Chirac and his henchmen for several months now.

    He's got to go.

    1. Re:They do, but... by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 1

      Except that he's more popular in France than ever, so why has he got to go again? You'd have a better case saying that Blair has got to go, given that he is going against the majority opinion of the british people ...

  128. "Tried to Suppress" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. They've tried to suppress it so much its available on a web site.

    One must assume you're "retarded".

    I hope you're not typical of your countrymen.

    1. Re:"Tried to Suppress" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is in Swedish, but yet it explains some of the background, and indeed some of the initial American resistance against it as an international standard.

  129. Local Transponders? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I thought that most GPS systems used local transponders to get the fine-tuned location resolution. Or is that the old way?

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    1. Re:Local Transponders? by anno1602 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most GPS systems don't use local tranbsponders. Only systems where accuracy is crucial and cannot be dependent upon the US military's whim use local transponders that send very accurate signals. Such configurations are used, for example, on some airports to guide planes to the tar strips. The accuracy of such systems can be measured in centimeters.

      Before people point out that ILS does that without depending on GPS at all: True, but the paths that ILS can guide airplanes along are not very flexible. Difficult-to-reach airports like those situated in valleys gain a lot of alternative approach paths by using the GPS-based system.

  130. "if the enemy fights fairly" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean just like the US does?

  131. Just goes to show... by EugeneK · · Score: 1

    In war, the first casualty is always the truth.

  132. C'mon tough guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we're so bad, then why would anybody live in the US.

    C'mon tough guy. Come here and tell me that. Right to my face.

    But you're an ANONymous Coward.

    Pretty easy to talk tough when you won't give your name...

    1. Re:C'mon tough guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon tough guy
      C'mon tough guy (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19, @11:23AM (#5544567)
      If we're so bad, then why would anybody live in the US.

      C'mon tough guy. Come here and tell me that. Right to my face.

      But you're an ANONymous Coward.

      Pretty easy to talk tough when you won't give your name...


      uhhh.. are you just kidding around here?
      1) you're anonymous also
      2) you're replying to someone who wasn't anonymous

      anyways, I'd say people come to the US for political/religious freedom and economic opportunity. The guy you're replying to didn't bash any of that.. he just thinks that it's stupid for the US to go to war.

  133. There's a BIG problem with this.... by mark-t · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I know a guy that's legally blind, and uses his GPS every once in a while to confirm his location -- specifically, he sometimes needs to confirm where he is at from time to time. This is particularly important when he is travelling to an address he has not been to for some time. A computer-synthesized voice tells him almost exactly where he is, in terms of the streets and avenue names of the city as well as an address range. This guy is amazingly self-reliant for someone who is blind, in my opinon (he actually isn't completely blind, but he can't make anything out other than blobs of color that are more than a few inches from his face).

    Now correct me if I'm mistaken here, but wouldn't deliberately decreasing the accuracy of GPS signals essentially create a further handicap for this person who uses the equipment in his day to day life to function more like a "normal" person. Somehow that just seems wrong to me.

    And on the up-side, it's great news for people who don't want the rental car companies tracking where they drive.

  134. That's absolute crap by apankrat · · Score: 2, Informative

    IIRC, differential GPS is where you correct for clock error by using a fixed point with a very accurate latitude/longitude measurement as one of your "sattelites".

    First of all, differential GPS operates with differences of a signal phases, not the timestamps.

    Second, DGPS was the one and only high-precision ("tenths of millimeter") method available before Us army decided to remove all artificial noice from the signal in 2000. It is a static method though and requires two nodes to sit tight on their spots for at least few minutes to accumulate enough redundant data.

    Thirdly, there is a kinetic methods that apply to a processing of noise GPS signals by moving objects. I dont remember all math behind it, but it works out into automatic cancellation of phase measurements error and gives a decent location and speed accuracy even with S/A on. Not suitable for high speed objects (such as missles), but more than enough for driving around.

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
  135. So, what you're saying is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Don't create competing products, because the USA already has made them". What happened to the capitalist ideals about competition in the market?

    1. Re:So, what you're saying is by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Is Galileo funded by the private sector? Are they going to make their money by selling licenses for recievers? I don't think so, chief.

      It's funded by the governments of the EU, with taxpayer money. So replace "capitalist ideals about competition in the market" in your post with phrase "not wasting EU money building something that does what something else already does for free".

      Of course, we won't have to worry about Galileo ever being degraded for military reasons because, well, (mainland) Europeans can't even take care of military problems within Europe, let alone project a significant force outside Europe.

      On the bright side, in ten years, if the North Koreans pay the French enough money, they can have precision guided munitions too.

  136. Checking the official resources... by jvaigl · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It's an interesting discussion, but doesn't look like it's going to happen. The article they're referring to is just some German auto club that says the thing maybe it could happen when the war starts. Hardly authoritative.

    The official sites to monitor if you're worried:

    www.igeb.gov: The IGEB is a senior-level policy making body chaired jointly by the Departments of Defense and Transportation. Its membership includes the Departments of State, Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, and Justice, as well as NASA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Right after 9/11/01, they posted (still there) this: "GPS Selective Availability (SA) has not been used since its deactivation by the President on May 1, 2000. At that time, the United States Government stated that it has no intent to ever use SA again. There has been no change in this policy."

    http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/default.htm is the official source for notices to civilian GPS users about schedule satellite outages, etc. They have nothing related to S/A being turned back on, and they certainly would if it were going to happen.

    We can jam or dither the civilian code over the theater if we need to.

  137. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 1

    but here in the UK the government may support America, but the majority of the UK population are against the war, as I believe is the case with Spain. Personally, I'd like to see someone tot up the various polls across Europe to try and give some idea of the general level of support across the continent.

  138. US military codename "Skeet" by drjzzz · · Score: 1

    in case the Euros don't oblige when we ask them to turn down the accuracy. Pass me that French fry.

    --
    to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
    1. Re:US military codename "Skeet" by mfrank · · Score: 1

      That's what the new EMP weapons are for. No evidence :).

  139. +4 informative? by pubjames · · Score: 1


    Can we please have some grown-ups moderating?

    I'm a bit fed-up with this childish name calling, by both Americans and Europeans. Time to grow up.

  140. Spoof? by Fishstick · · Score: 2, Funny

    From New Scientist

    Jammers can be deployed on mountaintops or tall antennas, but it is probably most economical to place them aboard aircraft. Langley thinks the US might also use "spoofing", in which fake signals fool the GPS receiver into thinking it is somewhere else.

    Cool, make the enemy think they are about 500 miles east from where they really are.

    Where the hell are we? This can't be right! According to this we are 300 miles out in the Gulf.

    --

    There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
    Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  141. What about soldiers with non-mil GPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen a large number of artilces where US soldiers have purchased retail (e.g. non military) GPS units because they are either smaller or have some feature they need.

    What happens to them? Are their mods out there to pull down the military P code from a civilian GPS unit?

  142. Re:More Moderator Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is some yellow slashdotter trying to get karma for their stupid post.

  143. GPSs and aviation navigation... by MarcosD · · Score: 1

    Although GPS navication is supposed to be WAAS enabled for accuracy, I wonder how the change will affect others that use their GPSs for /G approaches to airports that do not have RAIM? 100M inaccuracy can be devistation on an approach in IFR conditions. I personally have a Garmin 295 that I use however not for IFR approaches other than practice (in VFR conditions) just to fly the approach plates. Will this generate a NOTAM on the /G users out there or does the current system have the ability to disregard and use some sort of alternate navigation system?

  144. i think we can all live without this for a little by uidzer0.org · · Score: 0

    i wouldn't be so quick to gripe about this. gps is a great system and all but it can be exploited and in turn could cause the lives of us military soliders like myself. i highly doubt that the exact accuracy of your gps is going to effect your daily life to the point that it is more important that even 1 life. after all this is only a temporary thing.

  145. cleaning the SA signal by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 1
    Actually it is possible. Has nothing to do with triangulating, though.

    If you have one receiver in known coordinates and another at an unknown position (quite near the first one), you can 'detract' the error of the first receiver from the signal of the second. This way you get an error-free signal for the second receiver.

    This is usually done in post-processing, but I have seen it done on the fly.

    -jkk

  146. Kind of a funny story about this by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

    When I was in the Air Force I was a weather guy. Well part of my job was to go with forward air controllers etc. to take weather observations and send them back to the people who put toghether briefings etc. Well the people who ran that part of the program wanted to put out a small kit with everything we needed in it. Since weather observations are useless if you don't know where you are they wanted to put a GPS unit in the kit. To save money they went with a civillian model. Nobody thought of the problem with theis till I was beta testing the unit and asked. I was told in a very formal way to shut the fuck up. AFAIK they are still using those units so there are going to be some very pissed of weather folks. Gawd I fell for them.

    --

    Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
  147. Re:Let's cut off our noses by PizzaFace · · Score: 1

    A regional blackout would hardly be less disruptive to civilians (in that region) than a degradation of precision.

    Look, my point, which may have been lost (judging by the flamebait mods) in my frustration, is that civilians could be hurt if GPS were blacked out or degraded, and there is no reason to believe that precise GPS can significantly help Iraq. High-precision GPS was designed so our ICBMs (and now cruise missiles and smart bombs) could hit hardened targets like missile silos and command bunkers, or limit collateral damage. But (1) Iraq doesn't need any of those uses, either to defend itself against U.S. forces or to terrorize its civilian enemies, and (2) that kind of use requires guidance systems that Iraq doesn't have.

    It's the irrationality of the fear that makes it paranoid. And it's the damage to civilian uses, some of which save lives, that makes the paranoia stupid.

  148. Wrong. by Noren · · Score: 1
    GPS satellites are in middle earth orbit, as this site states:
    GPS satellites orbit the earth every 12 hours emitting continuous navigation signals on two different L-band frequencies.
    I expect it'd be fairly easy to program or command directly individual satellites to turn on or off SA every 6 hours.
  149. Re:Gosh..,. by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    at least we HAVE social welfare.

    don't blame us that you spend 40% of your GNP on your army.

    apart from the french and the germans, you had your chance for a coalition. but only if it was through the un, but if the us decides to do it their own way....

    your freedom doesnt give you the freedom to invade whatever country you like.

    i'd rather see saddam gone _with_ international support than with an us solo operation.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  150. "military won't degrade gps system" link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heard about this related link, thought it might be of interest...
    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news .jsp?id=ns999 93474

  151. Yes, dear.... by ralfg33k · · Score: 1

    Well, guys, I guess that either we're gonna have to stop and ask for directions again, or our dates will simply have to tolerate arriving late for awhile.

  152. SA is still off by Phil+Karn · · Score: 1

    As of right now, my GPS receiver (in San Diego) shows that all of the GPS satellites it currently sees still have SA turned off. It's 1836Z on 3/19/03.

  153. This would really hose us at my job by plopez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The comapny I am currently working for (an Env. Engr. firm) requires 15m accurracy for field work. We work with a number of large energy companies, state and federal regulatory bodies and we even are working with DOD and Army Corps of Engineers. If we cannot get good readings, we (and our clients) are out of compliance. Also, doing groundwater studies with 100m to 300m accurracy is also unreasonable.

    GPS has become so embedded in our society, that this move just isn't viable anymore, IMO.

    Is anyone else in this same situation?

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  154. Re:Gosh..,. by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

    You miss the point. When I wrote: >>The only reason western Europe has the luxuary of looking down its nose at the U.S. today is that they've essentially been a collection of welfare states of the United States for the last half century. I wasn't criticizing Europe's social welfare programs. I was criticizing European countries for being essentially what we in the United States used to refer to as "Welfare Queens." In other words, Europe has been given a free ride for decades. Almost every other country in the world has to spend money on it's own defense. Western European countries have been the exception because the American taxpayers have done it for them. By the way, The United States spends less than five percent of it's Gross National Product on Defense, not 40. Germany and France spend less than 2 percent. The reason both countries can do that is the United States has spent it's own money defending Europe. A situation I really, really hope ends in the very near future. -rj

    --
    - dj
  155. It'll cost you $1000-2000, Yankees by billstewart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The early news discussions were predicting the war would cost about $200 billion. That's about $1000-2000 per American taxpayer. Of course, that doesn't count the cost of taking that money out of the civilian economy, which had better things to do with it. If they'd really wanted to take out Saddam because he was a mean nasty ugly guy, a Mossad hit squad could have probably done it for $5-10M, and the CIA could have probably done it for well under a billion, without the need to kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians or risk the lives of large numbers of US soldiers.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:It'll cost you $1000-2000, Yankees by DohDamit · · Score: 1

      As long as we're talking money...how much did 9/11 cost in the end? The low estimate I've heard bandied around is ~a trillion dollars. Hmm. A hundred billion, or a trillion(or more, considering). Rough choice. Then again...who's stupid idea was it to frame this choice in terms of dollars anyway?

    2. Re:It'll cost you $1000-2000, Yankees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's 9/11 got to do with it?
      There has been not one single shred of evidence connecting Iraq with 9/11, or any form of Islamic terrorism outside Palestine (that is, he gives money to the families of suicide bombers).
      Meanwhile, the American security community is pretty unanimous that the war will strengthen organizations such as Al-Quaeda.
      So, yeah, you *should* probably add the tab for any *future* 9/11s to the cost of the war.

    3. Re:It'll cost you $1000-2000, Yankees by DohDamit · · Score: 1

      You don't read the WSJ. That's cool, it's not everyone's favorite reading. The other day, it had an article outlining how the terrorists that have been caught in recent days most likely committed identity theft in Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation. This kind of activity does NOT go unnoticed in a totalitarian regime. There's something there, but it most likely will remain hidden until we get ahold of Iraqi intelligence files.

      Btw. If we have a local ally(Iraq) we won't need troups in the holy lands. This is assuredly connected to the recruiting efforts of Al-Qaeda.

      The people who claim that this war will strengthen organizations such as Al-Qaeda are notoriously short-sighted(umm...Al-Qaeda, for example.) I don't put any stock in their portents.

    4. Re:It'll cost you $1000-2000, Yankees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ow much did 9/11 cost in the end? The low estimate I've heard bandied around is ~a trillion dollars.

      You are comparing an estimate of overall economic impact of 9/11 with actual money we are spending on Iraq.

      A hundred billion, or a trillion(or more, considering). Rough choice.

      Iraq had essentially nothing to do with 9/11 or the possibility of further terrorist attacks.

  156. Golf Scores to Skyrocket! by scheming+daemons · · Score: 2, Funny
    Look for a large increase in golf scores, as the many courses that use GPS will be effected.

    "I know the card says the hole is a 104-yard par 3, but the GPS says I'm 523 yards away. Better pull out the driver to be safe."

    --
    "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
    don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

  157. Actually it's the opposite by billstewart · · Score: 1

    If you're trying to nuke civilians, sure, what's an extra 100 meters when you're trying to punish somebody for having Weapons of Mass Destruction. But the real concern with GPS accuracy has been pre-emptive ICBM strikes taking out missile silos, and there it matters quite a lot whether you're hitting the hardened silo on the lid or 100 meters away.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  158. Why those systems exist by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Some of those systems were put in place to discourage development and widespread deployment of DGPS systems, and to retain some government centralized countrol of the technology. If there's ever a major ICBM attack on the US, you can bet that those things will be turned off right away, and any planes that were depending on them are going to have to land the old-fashioned way.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  159. Re:Let's cut off our noses by Oswald · · Score: 1
    Almost every time I take a deep breath and chill out before I flame somebody, they make me glad I did. I appreciate any and all appeals to reason in these high-stress times, and it would seem that's what you were trying to do.

    Still, I have trouble thinking of time-critical GPS applications that couldn't be considered, if not purely military, at least dual-use (excepting rare events like saving trapped miners). For instance, I can see where the DOD might have an interest in halting the use of precision GPS for instrument approaches, even if the aircraft involved weren't always Iraqi Air Force. Do you have examples of purely civilian GPS applications that couldn't stand a few days or weeks delay, or be replaced by old-school methods?

  160. Great FAQ on GPS Jamming, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/rep ort/2003/iraq-and-gps_faq.pdf

  161. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no, now some rich German asshole in his BMW can't find his away around Munich because the U.S. Military has reduced the GPS system's accuracy by a few feet. Give me a break. The population will deal. And given that the article mentions that it will most likely only effect auto GPS systems (usually in LUXURY automobiles) I don't see this as a problem at all.

    I thought you Europeans were "SO" much better than us Americans that you didn't drive cars let alone luxury vehicles. Aren't you too busy giving away half your GNP to some poor craphole somewhere like you're always blathering here on slashdot?

    Funny, I didn't need a GPS system to drive to the supermarket (or walk to, for that matter). It was quite easy to find.

  162. insightful? by Transient0 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the parent paraphrase as: "If it's useful, and it's not ours, we have the right to blow it up."?

    Since when does that sort of dangerous self-righteous neo-patriotic paranoia qualify as insightful?

    This may be marked as flamebait, but it's worth the chance, I have Karma to burn anyway.

    1. Re:insightful? by Hentai · · Score: 1

      Rights don't even enter into it.

      This is the USA. This is how it thinks. If we CAN blow it up, and blowing it up serves our immediate short-term interests, you can damn well expect a huge honkin' fireball.

      I didn't say it was RIGHT, I just said it WAS.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
  163. "We promise not to degrade the signal" by ablair · · Score: 1

    Seems a few people here are more than a little gullible to believe this DoD spokesman at face value. More to the point than military PR, is whether or not they've degraded the signal in the past where & when it really counts.

    "The first casualty of war is Truth"

  164. Let's think about this logically by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    There's no reason for the U.S. to degrade the signal out of fear of the Iraqis using it against allied forces. If there is any opposition, it isn't going to manifest itself in mobile battles where manuever is necessary, it'll be rooting out entrenched defenders of static positions.

    1. Re:Let's think about this logically by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

      I just thought of another reason that degradation is unlikely: the soldiers are using civilian GPS units themselves. In fact, a lot of them do. The military PLGR units are expensive, a pain in the butt to get for those whom the military doesn't deem needful, and have to be safeguarded, so the guys go out and get their own Garmins or whatever. The increasing dependence on civilian units is one of the reasons the military is pushing to get the new DAGR units developed and out in the hands of the troops.

  165. 100 meters is more than enough by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    100 meters is more than good enough for automotive navigation if you're paying attention to the road, so who cares about SA?

    I've driven in New England without GPS assistance. There were a few times it might've been nice ("How many miles am I from Quincy Market now?"), but it's nothing 100 meters of error would've caused a problem with.

    In short: If you're paying attention primarily to the road and your surroundings, 100 meters error won't hurt you at all.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  166. Can't be done by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    There's no difference between handheld civilian units and other civilian units. They all use the same signals, with the exception of survey-grade equipment which is not affected by SA to begin with. (That and civilian equipment which is receiving some form of DGPS correction data, whether through the Coast Guard's VLF transmitters in the US, WAAS from geostationary non-military satellites, or any other DGPS source such as dgpsip)

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  167. Good point. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Either way, it requires some sort of reference position in order to measure the error.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  168. It's flattering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How everyone tries to copy the U.S. Look at them Madge, aren't they just adorable! Their very own little GPS.

  169. Not *exactly* the same by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    This is fine for civilian use, but military units that wanted to radio home for the current reference offset would need to break radio silence.

    One of the nicest things about GPS is that you *don't* have to have any other sort of telecom systems up and running -- GPS just works everywhere.

    Bush is a jerk. If he thinks that GPS is going to help Iraqi troops worth a damn, he's in for a surprise. They can tell just fine when there's a plane overhead and shoot at it. In the meantime, it screws over civilians everywhere. I suppose doing otherwise would be to break Bush administration traditions -- screwing over civilians to benefit the military.

  170. A little history here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the first time S/A was turned OFF was GW1... So that the military could use civilian GPS units instead of P code hardware... Something tells me GW2 will be much the same... Of course I bet P-code stuff is cheaper for the govt now and in less shortage of supply... but civilian is even cheaper now... and I think its a restricted import technology for Iraq

  171. Survey grade GPS trouble by EarthDr. · · Score: 1

    For what it's worth, we have been having trouble with our survey grade GPS the last couple of days. Tracking 9 satellites, we are having trouble obtaining "lock" and our vertical resolution is piss-poor....on the order of 0.1 to 0.5 foot where we usually get 0.02 to 0.03 foot with 9 satellites. The impending war and intentional signal degradation was the first thing that came to mind. Anyone else having similar trouble?

  172. wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article is patently false. According to the US military, SA (Selective Availability) can be enabled on a region-by-region basis, and the military has assurred US GPS receiver (GPSr) users that SA will NOT be turned on in the USA should a conflict ensue. Only the Persian Gulf region would purportedly have their signal degraded, and it's likely that won't even happen, as many US troops are equipped with commercial GPSr units. Preferrably, the US military will use localized jamming in order to hamper the use of GPS by Iraqi troops.

  173. stuff by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    So will this make car navigation systems useless in cities where accuracy is needed? Hopefully we'll get the European GPS system sometime soon..

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  174. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by DohDamit · · Score: 1

    Nice knee-jerk there, dummy. Did you happen to notice you're replying to a Finnish person?

    Stupid ass.

  175. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by jalet · · Score: 1

    No, I didn't realize this until after I hit [Submit].

    Next time I'll read more carefully, but I find this joke really funny anyway.

    BTW, the only time you'll see my ass is when I'll poop on your face.

    --
    Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
  176. JDAM by cameldrv · · Score: 1

    GPS may be jammable, but the JDAM and other GPS guided weapons have means for dealing with this. First, the GPS on the JDAM has an antenna that is designed to reject signals coming from the ground, as well as extensive anti-jamming electronics. Even if all of this fails though, the JDAM has an INS which will get it to a CEP of 30m. It's not the 18m or so with the GPS, but even that is the worst case scenario where you don't have GPS for the entire flight of the bomb. The more realistic case is that the jamming only affects the bomb after it gets low. In that case, with the INS only operating on its own for a few seconds, so the errors shouldn't accumulate too badly.

  177. But this has already been hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hasn't the US military realized that commercial equipment is available (created by Trimble Navigation and sold to surveyors and others who need pinpoint accuracy all the time) that works around all the innacuracies the US can introduce by the simple tactic of comparing the results recieved to those for a known location?

    Anyway, Iraqui forces don't need GPS, they know where they are. It's the US that needs so it doesn't get lost and accidentally invade Jordan.

    1. Re:But this has already been hacked by filmcritic · · Score: 0

      "Anyway, Iraqui forces don't need GPS, they know where they are. It's the US that needs so it doesn't get lost and accidentally invade Jordan.
      "

      Go fuck yourself and while you're at it, try saying that witty little line in a country like Iraq. Fucking creep.

  178. Europeans our allies by GunFodder · · Score: 1

    Anyone with the resources and the technology to deploy their own satellite positioning system is also in a position to defend their system from the US with economic sanctions or military force. Candidates include Japan, China, the EU, and Russia. I don't think the US could afford the repercussions of an overt strike to any of those nations.

    1. Re:Europeans our allies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the US dared to try it on with the European Union they'd become a basket case economy run by a military dictatorship in a very short space of time. Heck, it's already going that way anyway...

  179. Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't need GPS just to *Surrender*, you cheese-eating surrender monkey.

  180. Gps - Other problems by Loosewire · · Score: 1

    So what happens to all those flash people going around with those gps powered devices which tell them where speed cameras are :-) i predict many more speed camera tickets

    --
    Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
    1. Re:Gps - Other problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use yer peepers like all the rest of us Paupers

    2. Re:Gps - Other problems by Loosewire · · Score: 1

      i dont use them - im talking about all the flash git's who rely on them who will get loads more tickets ehehhehe :-)

      --
      Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  181. original purpose is irrelevant by GunFodder · · Score: 1

    ENIAC was developed to compute firing tables for the military. This doesn't mean that the primary purpose of computing equipment is for the military. I'm sure the economic impact of civilian computer use far outweighs that of military use. Computing has generally been repurposed for business and scientific needs.

    TCP/IP was also developed to satisfy a requirement for the military, and it too has outlived its original purpose to serve a wider audience. Even if the military could they would never limit the use of TCP/IP because they would cripple the US economy. The benefits of limiting access to enemies would be outweighed by the instant revolution back home.

    GPS may have been developed to guide cruise missiles, but it can do a lot more than that. The US military may currently have control over this system, but that won't necessarily last forever. One commercial dependence on GPS passes a critical point then the disadvantages of shutting down the system outweigh the advantages to our adversaries.

  182. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by cpeterso · · Score: 1


    If Europe built its own GPS system, it would be interesting to have devices that use both the European and USian GPS systems and combined the results.

  183. Re:Yes, the mayority of Spain are against the war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's important to remember that the war will be made although the 89% of people in my country are against the war.

    In my own street, there are a lot of posters with the message 'no a la guerra' (no war) written in them, in houses, shops and in the Faculty.

    The President of Spain, Aznar is now really one of the more hated politics in the country.

    PD: I known my english is ugly :-)

  184. Re:Gosh..,. by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    My view of the future would be one where the UN and the NATO have more power than now. a future where all countries, no exceptions, wouldonly use their army in a NATO context. this also counts for france in africa.

    fighting unjustice is ok, but we all should agree on what that unjustice is. a dictator in africa deserves the same treatment as any other dictator.

    countries should contribute a fair share in money and people for such an international army.

    i know this doesn't solve the current crisis, but it's something for the future.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  185. US-sponsored terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you seriously suggesting that keeping around 200 alleged terrorists locked up without due process is somehow comparable to killing 5000 civilians with chemical weapons?

    It was a poor example of the reprehensible behaviour (including terrorism as defined here or here) that the US has been known to engage in.

  186. Let me just add some common sense here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, stop whining you cheese eating surrender monkey.

  187. It goes without saying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's a more polite way of saying they won't be going in"

    The french won't be fighting!!!????? Whaaa....?

  188. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what you're saying is the US is the moral equivalent of Iraq?

    thanks.

    I hope you and your whole family dies of cancer.

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      So what you're saying is the US is the moral equivalent of Iraq?

      thanks.

      I hope you and your whole family dies of cancer.


      man, you have just proved his point...

  189. Re:+4 informative? YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grown-ups the world over are saying a lot of bad things about France.

    France is now irrelevant as a world player. Not that they had much prestige to begin with.

    Less informed people are saying the french are a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys.

    I think that's not true. The french don't eat that much cheese.

  190. Re:Let's cut off our noses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no, our gadgets are more important than a few weeks of helping our military win the war.

    I think we're all spoiled.

  191. cheat codes by m0rphm0nkey · · Score: 1

    So we've got the cheat codes?!

    Thats pretty cool actually, maybe they'll find more tanks parked in squares.

  192. Re:Thats one reason why europe should build own GP by ccmay · · Score: 1
    (What next, no GPS for France?)

    Fine by me. Putains de merde.

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
  193. Re:Gosh..,. by dick+johnson · · Score: 1

    So I assume that you would then agree that ALL countries should pay an equal share of the costs in these organizations?

    The U.S. still pays for the defense of most of the Western European countries. The Europeans scoff at the amount of money we spend on defense. But they should look at themselves first. Do they realize how much of the American defense budget is directed at the defense of Western Europe?

    The European contribution to their own defense is pathetic. It's time that the U.S. stops paying for the defense of these countries. They are all grown up and prosperous.

    If the Europeans would simply pay a fair share of the costs of their own defense, the United States could then reduce its own defense spending and allocate that money to our own domestic needs.

    If the United States had been able to spend all the money that we spent defending these European countries on our own domestic needs, we here in the U.S. would have a truly utopian society. We're talking on the scale of hudreds of trillions of dollars.

    I'll make the analogy of a young adult still living at home with his parents. He wants to voice his own opinion and do things his own way. But he is not truly an adult until he moves out of his parents house, takes responsibiity for his own life and starts paying his own bills.

    It's nice to see that the Europeans want to voice their own opinions on world events. It would be nicer still if they'd be willing to pay for their own defense.

    -dj

    --
    - dj
  194. Lost without your GPS by fm6 · · Score: 1
    Incidentally, how does one check GPS data? Against another GPS??
    How quickly they forget! There used to be all kinds of primitive navigation devices before GPS was invented: street signs, house numbers, navigation beacons, other stone age stuff. Some of these might still be in useable form. You could check your GPS against them.
  195. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  196. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    The Guy on the Right Doesn't Stand a Chance
    The guy on the right has the Osborne 1, a fully functional computer system
    in a portable package the size of a briefcase. The guy on the left has an
    Uzi submachine gun concealed in his attache case. Also in the case are four
    fully loaded, 32-round clips of 125-grain 9mm ammunition. The owner of the
    Uzi is going to get more tactical firepower delivered -- and delivered on
    target -- in less time, and with less effort. All for $795. It's inevitable.
    If you're going up against some guy with an Osborne 1 -- or any personal
    computer -- he's the one who's in trouble. One round from an Uzi can zip
    through ten inches of solid pine wood, so you can imagine what it will do
    to structural foam acrylic and sheet aluminum. In fact, detachable magazines
    for the Uzi are available in 25-, 32-, and 40-round capacities, so you can
    take out an entire office full of Apple II or IBM Personal Computers tied
    into Ethernet or other local-area networks. What about the new 16-bit
    computers, like the Lisa and Fortune? Even with the Winchester backup,
    they're no match for the Uzi. One quick burst and they'll find out what
    Unix means. Make your commanding officer proud. Get an Uzi -- and come home
    a winner in the fight for office automatic weapons.
    -- "InfoWorld", June, 1984

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...