Slashdot Mirror


EU Presses Ahead With Galileo GPS System

philkerr writes "The BBC is reporting that European transport ministers have agreed to the 2008 deployment of the European controlled GPS system. Costing 2.1 billion euros and creating 150,000 jobs. Is this just a pork-barrel project, or something Europe really needs to break the reliance on U.S. space technology? This was discussed on Slashdot in June when the U.S. and EU reached an agreement on its deployment."

520 comments

  1. Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The project is on fire.

  2. Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Between GPS, GLONASS, and this new EU Galileo system, it's nice to see competition in this market... but how many do we really need?

    1. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by rzebram · · Score: 1

      According to the article, this is backwards compatible with our GPS system, so while having the capacity to be a little competitive, possibly offering features of its' own, this is really benefitting everybody involved.

    2. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by liangzai · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      but how many do we really need?

      Ein Land, ein Volk, ein Führer, eine GPS Systeme.

    3. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      it's nice to see competition in this market... but how many do we really need?

      Personally I'm convinced that it's just a military decision. We'll probably have just enough so that every major military power is satisfied that it has suitable control over at least one. China would probably have its own system if it possibly could.

      European countries and the USA are hardly about to declare war on one another, but they've had enough disagreement lately. It's entirely possible that they will disagree about who to attack, and either side might feel threatened if the other holds control over its ability to effectively wage war on someone else. Plus, now the EU has another barganing chip for dealing with others. Third party countries (eg. India/Pakistan) can barter with someone other the USA if and when they want to launch their missiles at each other.

    4. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ein Land, ein Volk, ein Führer, eine GPS Systeme.

      GODWIIIIIIIIIIN!!!!!!!!!

    5. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by XenonDif · · Score: 3, Informative

      One of the slick things that the Europeans did in designing the Galileo system is that they used very nearly the same frequencies as GPS, which makes it very easy for a consumer device to use both systems at the same time and therefor gaining a lot of accuracy. As an aside, it makes it impossible to jam one without jamming the other.

    6. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by KontinMonet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't military, the system is being run by commercial companies. From the military point of view the system can be downgraded in areas of conflict. From the start, the driver for the European system was domestic use.

      The main point behind this is the increased accuracy. The US GPS is almost useless in a lot of European cities (winding, narrow streets). In London, I sometimes get 300/400m accuracy on my Garmin (which is not much good for accurate navigation) and, 25% of the time, I get an unuseable signal ("Too weak").

      And as for Europe declaring war on the US (with what, a very limited nuclear arsenal compared to the massive US stockpile?), nuclear systems use all sorts of other navigational aids besides GPS. Even 'ordinary' non-cruise missiles use other reasonably accurate methods which have been around long before GPS.

      --
      Did he inhale?
    7. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hail Bush! Hail Bush! The Confederate flag (on Bushes wall) is the new swastica! Hail!

    8. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by m50d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, the European nuclear arsenal is more than enough to destroy the US several times over. People always seem to estimate how powerful nukes are.

      --
      I am trolling
    9. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was in downtown London I got ~15m. In Greenwich, I got 5m easy. And at 0 west, too :)

    10. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, the European nuclear arsenal is more than enough to destroy the US several times over. People always seem to estimate how powerful nukes are.

      You mean underestimate?

      Anyway, I bet us Europeans could bomb vast parts of America until there was nothing left. The population would be left as savages; with no proper food to speak of, they would fill their bellies with nutritionally worthless crap. Their descent into religious fanatacism (probably some hideously warped variant of Christianity) and intolerant hypocrisy would be swift. A race of poorly educated, ignorant cretins.

      Of course, this would probably be an improvement if we bombed Texas ;-P

    11. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of the EU, only the UK and France have nuclear weapons. Comparatively speaking, the number of nukes is much smaller than the US, which was designed in the first place to counter the USSR's arsenal.

    12. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humm. I would have expected it to be "one gps system to rule them all".

    13. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The population would be left as savages; with no proper food to speak of, they would fill their bellies with nutritionally worthless crap. Their descent into religious fanatacism (probably some hideously warped variant of Christianity) and intolerant hypocrisy would be swift. A race of poorly educated, ignorant cretins.

      There are days, that I am convinced that we are already there.

    14. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, I bet us Europeans could bomb vast parts of America until there was nothing left. The population would be left as savages; with no proper food to speak of, they would fill their bellies with nutritionally worthless crap. Their descent into religious fanatacism (probably some hideously warped variant of Christianity) and intolerant hypocrisy would be swift. A race of poorly educated, ignorant cretins.

      I'm so gonna have to paraphrase that into a sig.

    15. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparatively speaking, the number of nukes is much smaller than the US,

      Doesn't necessarily mean we couldn't flatten the US, though. Just means they would be in a good position to retaliate.

      Not a problem though; have someone point to Kansas on a map, say "That them there's Europe", and they'll probably believe you and bomb themselves. :)

    16. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah throw that in there with your other hatred-filled mis-generalizations.

    17. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by jrumney · · Score: 1
      In London, I sometimes get 300/400m accuracy on my Garmin (which is not much good for accurate navigation) and, 25% of the time, I get an unuseable signal ("Too weak").

      Let me guess, you spend 25% of your time stuck in traffic jams in the Blackwall tunnel? I don't know anyone that has problems as bad as you describe in London. The occassional problem with trees or buildings stopping the receiver getting a lock when you start out, but once you're moving, you should get a signal pretty quick provided you haven't mounted the aerial too far inside your car. Maybe you need to reposition the aerial?

    18. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by CombatWombat · · Score: 1

      The issue is not the use of GPS for targeting nuclear weapons.

      The issue is the use of GPS for other military activity, such as conventional weapon guidance and navigation for ships, aircraft, and ground forces.

      Read the overview of the JDAM at FAS:

      http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam.ht m

      "The weapon system allows launch from very low to very high altitude and can be launched in a dive, toss, loft or in straight and level flight with an on-axis or off-axis delivery. JDAM also allows multiple target engagements on a single pass delivery"

      So, one bomber, 10 bombs, 10 precision targets, one pass. Sure, we'd just love our enemies to have access to this capability.

      Yes, it has an inertial navigation system. Yes, it can work without GPS. Yes, othe countries could probably develop something similar INS wise.

      But since the CEP is cut in half when GPS is available, I think it's reasonable to deny our enemies this advantage if possible.

    19. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      "A race of poorly educated, ignorant cretins."
      Who are mostly decended from europeans, thus the same race (the human race is all the same to me, but hey I didn't start with pseudo racism here).
      Also these poorly educated, ignorant cretins put the first man on the moon, the ORIGINAL gps system, played a major part in ending WWII for the good guys, and a few other noteworthy things. I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but really if your going to troll at least come up with somthing a)orinal b)doesn't so badly self reflect and c)has some thin sliver of being remotely believable.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    20. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tschuldigung, aber wenn wir hier schon Nazi Sprüche machen, kann ich ja wohl auch 'nen Grammatik-Nazi spielen: Es heißt "ein GPS-System"! Systeme ist Plural und das System ist ein Neutrum, nicht weiblich!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    21. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      How about we put some numbers down.

      US 10,240

      Russia 8,400

      China 390

      France 350

      UK 200-300

      India 60-90

      Pakistan 55-250
      So this puts this dicksize competition into perspective. But not quite. Only the US and Russia have the final piece in the Mutual Assured Destruction puzzle: second strike capability with ballistic missile submarines 24-7. While France and the UK may have almost 600 nuclear warheads, some of them thermonuclear, there is no assurance that they could destroy all the nuclear missiles in the US in a preemptive attack. In fact due to the submarines, they would most definately not be able to do so. Considering that the US has more missiles underwater than all of Europe, it would be suicidal to even consider launching a preemptive attack.

    22. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you guys really think that a nuke will be long enough in the air to actually point to something usefull? Let alon hit anything?

    23. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0
      "You mean underestimate?"

      I think you misunderestimate him.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    24. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, this would probably be an improvement if we bombed Texas

      I'm guessing that all these non-USAians pick on Texas because of Dubya.

      For the record, Bush is not from Texas. He's from Connecticut.

    25. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Cassius105 · · Score: 1

      its a retarded argument anyway really

      Europe has enough nukes to flaten america and america has enough nukes to flaten europe

      so it doesnt matter who has more because if it ever happened both sides are royaly fucked anyway :P

    26. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by m50d · · Score: 1

      They're mostly descended from criminals and other undesirables who were exported from europeans, thus the lower end of the bell curve for the same race when it comes to education. Not that this makes you wrong, just saying.

      --
      I am trolling
    27. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, his problems sound like a classic "no external antenna" situation.

      When using a handheld GPS inside a car, his reliability problems are typical no matter where you are because of the metal roof. For good GPS reception in a car, you NEED an external antenna.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    28. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Hrdina · · Score: 1
      There are days, that I am convinced that we are already there.

      You know, I bet the poster to whom you replied had never thought of that. What amazing perception you have!

    29. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by m50d · · Score: 1

      However, the UK also has ballistic missile submarines. Not many, but enough, especially if France has a similar number (I'm not sure). 4 Vanguard classes, each has 16 missiles carrying 8 475Kt warheads (or 10 smaller warheads). 512 or 640 warheads may not sound much compared to the US arsenal, and indeed it isn't, but it's enough to put a big dent in anyone's day. Bottom line, any war between the US and the EU would be a bad idea, for both parties. However, the question is about *Europe*, which, last time I checked, included quite a bit of Russia. If the US goes to war with Europe it's toast, have no doubts about this.

      --
      I am trolling
    30. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      And explorers and adventurers and those hunting fame and fortune.
      Also look at Australia, IIRC didn't they start as a penal colony. I think they turned out pretty good (at least the Australians I've met have been pretty cool people, including some rather attractive ones as well).
      Come to think of it those Early Americans had a bit of a penchant for rebellion also.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    31. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by m50d · · Score: 1
      And explorers and adventurers and those hunting fame and fortune.

      Who also tend to be undereducated.

      --
      I am trolling
    32. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by El+Cabri · · Score: 1

      It is not a military problem. The reason the Europe is seeking redundancy with the GPS is really that in the coming decades, the GPS system will be instrumental to any economic activity, as it will replace radio-nav for airplane and ship traffic, will be massively used by road traffic, etc.... The GPS will become to the movement of things what the IP protocol is to the movement of data. Economic activity as a whole would be severely impaired if it were to be disabled over a particular area.

      If the US had a monopoly on it, at any moment it could start charging for its usage and kevy a tax on the whole world, or threaten to do so in trade negociations.

      Thanks to Europe, and especially France which is the only nation to have consistently pushed for it within the EU (even the Germans were convinced only recently), this will not happen.

    33. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by deesine · · Score: 0

      Go ahead, wrap yourself in a university degree, surround yourself with ivory tower denizens and then keep telling yourself that you're superior, the better human.

      Interesting how 'educated' people tend to be the most arrogant.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    34. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Actually it was the upper part of the bell curve that went to the states because the people who went there were intelligent enough to realize that their lives sucked and didn't want to be persecuted anymore. Also, some of the most famous and richest europeans came the American for various reasons, some of them are responsible for founding a few of the states in exsitence today. Seems to me that you need to go back and study some American history.
      Regards,
      Steve

    35. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Maybe there's a good reason we're the most arrogant.

      --
      I am trolling
    36. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by deesine · · Score: 0

      I'm sure, with all your education, that you do have a justification for being an arrogant twit. Doesn't change the fact that you're a bigot.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    37. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      Is the EU a member of the Axis of Evil now?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    38. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yep, France has a boomer fleet quite similar to the UK's. Two Indomptable class, three Triomphant (the names are all in the "look at me! look at how my willy's long, thick, stiff and pleasurable! class -- silly). There are always at least three at sea at any given moment in time, sometimes four.

      There are 64 missiles (four loads of 16), which are moved back and forth, as they're pretty much pointless in a ship at the harbour. A total of 384 warheads, for a total yield of 50Mt (yes, that's a single "Tsar Bomba", but spread over a big area, I s'pose it hurts kind of more).

      Oh, and this fleet are the SNLE (SLBM launchers). There is also a similarly sized fleet of SNA (A for attack, which are for the hunting. No nuke-tipped torpedoes AFAPK)

    39. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by thisgooroo · · Score: 1

      does that mean you are going to start a preventive war when one of your "enemies" starts developing this technology for himself?

    40. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely!

      They are now giving the bomb to Iran! Its time that we nuke the hell out of all of them!

    41. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also look at Australia, IIRC didn't they start as a penal colony."

      Yep we did, and IMHO (our current govt apart) we turned out a damned sight better than the US, which was founded by Puritan religious bigots.

    42. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Between Ford, GM, and Chrysler, it's nice to see competition in this market... but how many do we really need?

    43. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Sorry, where was I bigoted? A bigot is someone who is unreasonably intolerant of opinions different from his own. Show me where I meet that definition.

      --
      I am trolling
    44. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

      Australia: the only nation to go from barbarism to decadence without passing through civilisation.

      --
      You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    45. Re:Competition or Redundancy? by SpinyManiac · · Score: 1

      Conversly, all UK strategic nukes are in submarines, so it would be foolish to nuke Britain as well.

      --
      It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
  3. would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS system? by fantomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If not, why should France/ Estonia /Germany/ other EU nation rely on a US system? I can't imagine many heads of armed forces being too happy about relying on a foreign power's system that is out of their control.

  4. Re:Global Tracking by Neophytus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is an issue at the moment that GPS is the de-facto standard for both consumers and business, and there isn't really any competition out there. Should the GPS system fail or be temporarily "upgraded" so that "terrorists" suddenly think they're a mile away from where they really are I don't know of an alternative that The Rest of Us (TM) can use.

  5. Accuracy by Fishy · · Score: 2, Informative

    You seem to have missed out the part about improving accuracy and reliability.

    I couldn't give a monkey about the politics, but anything that improves the signal makes me happy.

    1. Re:Accuracy by gothamboy · · Score: 1

      2 Billion Euros is a lot to spend on a small improvement in accuracy--and does anyone think it can be built for less than 3 Billion after expected overruns? This is pure pork.

    2. Re:Accuracy by Skater · · Score: 1

      Could a single receiver use both GPS and the EU system to achieve incredible accuracy without differential corrections that GPS requires (which gives 3 meter accuracy IIRC)?

      Not that I have a need for such accuracy, I'm just curious.

      --RJ

    3. Re:Accuracy by Fishy · · Score: 1

      Yes, GPS units already uses other systems to improve accuracy.

      See here http://www.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html

    4. Re:Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. This is an important benefit of the Galileo system.

      GPS currently consists of 27 LEO satellites. There are also several seperate local augmentation systems which use geosynchronous satellites (e.g. EGNOS and WAAS), but which themselves do not act as positioning systems.

      Galileo will provide an additional 30 positioning satellites. The distribution of the satellites is also different to GPS, with the Galileo satellites reaching higher lattitudes than GPS.

      A dual system receiver will therefore be able to provide a position fix from 57 seperate satellites. In a poor signal area, this can mean the difference between getting a very good positional fix, as compared to getting only a 2D fix, or no fix at all. (3 satellite signals required for 2D, 4 required for 3D, 6 or more optimal).

      Remember that in cities, where navigation or tracking requires maximum precision - that the tall buildings mean that the GPS signals are at their weakest - the majority of satellites being obscured by tall buildings. In some cities, in Northern lattitudes, GPS is virtually unusable due to the above effect, and the geometry of the GPS orbits.

      Going back to the original question - don't forget that the Galileo system has differential corrections (like the WAAS system) built in, which is one reason for its superior accuracy. If you want very high accuracy then you will need a subscription to the encrypted Galileo service, which operates in the same way as the military high-precision GPS service.

  6. Overdetermination in navigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Multi system receivers will give much greater accuracy than a single system receiver. Great news for geocachers. http://www.commlinx.com.au/GPS_GLONASS_receiver.ht m

    Just imagine a triple system handheld concumer receiver unit.

    1. Re:Overdetermination in navigation by croddy · · Score: 1
      we deploy a multi-billion dollar satellite navigation system orbiting in space ... we develop super-powerful, pocket-sized receivers to interface with this system ... and THIS is what you do with it? hide CANDY in the woods and post about it on your blog?

      guh.

    2. Re:Overdetermination in navigation by psycho8me · · Score: 0

      At least it's better than military uses. I bet you use your pc which took THOUSANDS of years of human civilization and BILLIONS in research to develop to look at porn and surf the web too.

    3. Re:Overdetermination in navigation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Man has been striving for millions of years to be able to look at internet porn.

    4. Re:Overdetermination in navigation by DrMindWarp · · Score: 1
      Just imagine a triple system handheld concumer receiver unit.

      You forgot the correct technical nomenclature that we have come to expect on Slashdot, namely "beowulf cluster".

  7. Re:Global Tracking by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 1

    RTFA. This system will operate with GPS, not just as an alternative. More satellites means better accuracy and better availability:

    "More importantly from the civilian perspective, the agreement allowed the systems to be meshed seamlessly, greatly benefiting manufacturers, service providers and consumers.

    Better accuracy, especially in built-up areas where the current GPS signal can be patchy, should lead to a bigger demand for positioning systems."

  8. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Geez! Because they are the GOOD guys of course!

  9. Super accurate GPS? by Cow007 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What would be really cool is to set up some sort of dual band GPS reciever that uses both systems at the same time for never before possible accuracy.

    --
    411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
  10. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Yorrike · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What pisses me off is the US's statement that they'll locally block the European system in places they don't want potential "enemies" (read, China), having accurate location tracking.

    I wonder how the US would react if, say, China started blocking GPS from certain places to hold back it's enemies. Tibet for example.

    --

    Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

  11. GPS by blcknight · · Score: 1

    An European GPS system isn't that bad of an idea. It's not like it's going to interfere with the US system, it might incorporate some better features like stronger signals so it's easier to get a lock (it's almost impossible in some areas of the US with my Garmin unit), and it won't be at the mercy of US's whim to scramble the signal in certain locations or disable entirely if they wanted to.

    1. Re:GPS by brianmf · · Score: 1

      it won't be at the mercy of US's whim to scramble the signal in certain locations or disable entirely if they wanted to.

      Yes it will.

    2. Re:GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unfortunately thats entirely the corner we were backed into before the US agreed to allow us (what gives them that right anyway?) to deploy our own system.

    3. Re:GPS by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      (what gives them that right anyway?)

      They threatened with holding their breath until we agreed.

    4. Re:GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, thats where your wrong. The US will find a way to cripple it, especially over US mil installations. And as per typical US "most be bigger than you" attitude, this new system will be better and all we hear about it lamericans bitching about it.

    5. Re:GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no no, they were huffing and puffing and trying to blow the house down...

  12. Yeah... by Ziviyr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It'll be nice to have a GPS system which won't be known for routine power-play dicking around.

    The US is too unstable to hold the keys to a globally relied on tech...

    --

    Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    1. Re:Yeah... by thogard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You haven't been looking at the politics around Galileo have you?

    2. Re:Yeah... by OverlordQ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well the thing is this.

      If somebody uses GPS to attack the US, we can quickly degredate GPS resolution in the area.

      With Gallileo on the other hand, good luck getting the ruling body (by the people, for the people) to agree quick enough for it to make a difference.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    3. Re:Yeah... by d_strand · · Score: 1

      Since the ruling body in this case would be the Comission (or possibly the minister council) and not the parliament, I think it wouldn't be that hard to make them agree.

      (I know i'm not allowed to whine about it, but i submitted this 2 days ago and was rejected... so i'll whine here)

    4. Re:Yeah... by lightknight · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, let's give them to China for a while. I mean, I love chinese food and working out, so eating ramen noodles while working the rice paddies in our commune.

      Or perhaps you think Western Europe would be better suited to the task? I mean, if you think the US power-plays, you haven't been to France. The US is in the local leagues compared to the French (major leagues).

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    5. Re:Yeah... by B2382F29 · · Score: 1

      I mean, if you think the US power-plays, you haven't been to France. The US is in the local leagues compared to the French (major leagues).

      AFAIK, the French didn't invade other countries lately...

      --
      Move Sig. For great justice.
    6. Re:Yeah... by brianmf · · Score: 2, Informative

      A quote from the article:

      These technical parameters will allow either side to effectively jam the other's signal in a small area, such as a battlefield, without shutting down the entire system.

      So jamming should not take any longer than it does currently.....

    7. Re:Yeah... by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just thinking about it, the ability to have jamming occur so easily may encourage massive first strike.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:Yeah... by Tonytheloony · · Score: 1

      Another irrationnal (and unjustifiable) hatred for the french gets modded up? How suprising!

      --
      The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
    9. Re:Yeah... by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

      Another irrationnal (and unjustifiable) hatred for the french gets modded up? How suprising!

      Seems fair, since so much irrational (and unjustifiable) hatred for the Americans gets modded up.

    10. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, the US government has invaded a sovereign country based on lies, tortures people, tries to play world-policemen. Not all of this is irrational and unjustified.

    11. Re:Yeah... by pinkocommie · · Score: 1

      Sorry for being ignorant about history but besides the long standing British-French rivalry mind telling me what else the French have been upto? (Not trolling.. would really like to know)

    12. Re:Yeah... by IO+ERROR · · Score: 1
      The US is too unstable to hold the keys to a globally relied on tech...

      Indeed! I hope this new system will be available in the U.S. I suspect, though, that our increasingly fascist government will try to ban it. Anyone up for smuggling in GPS receivers?

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    13. Re:Yeah... by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Is this just a pork-barrel project" ... asks someone from the country which invented Star Wars, the War on Terror, the Department of Homeland Security, and just elected Haliburton's CEO as vice-president who promptly invaded two countries.

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

      So jamming should not take any longer than it does currently....

      yes, but will you be able to jam using RASPBERRY now?

    15. Re:Yeah... by waynelorentz · · Score: 1

      the US government has invaded a sovereign country based on lies, tortures people, tries to play world-policemen.

      Sounds like just about every other major country at some point in history -- Portugal, England, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, India, The Netherlands, Austria, Argentina, etc... Even France has done this in the fairly recent past (or currently, depending on how you view the situation in Côte d'Ivoire). You should crack a hisory book.

      The U.S. does not want to be the world's policeman. That is a role the European nations created for it during Soviet times. It costs money and it costs lives. But the European states keep asking the United States to step in over and over again in places the U.S. would rather stay out -- Yugoslavia, for example; Bosnia, for another -- because the U.S. has the biggest military with the best technology.

      Then we come to Iraq, which is one of the few times the Americans decided to fetch without being told to by the Europeans. This is a problem for them because for the first time in one of these conflicts the U.S. didn't agree to some leash approved by someone else. The Europeans are worried about what might happen with the dog out on its own. Who knows what will happen. It's too soon to tell.

      France was more than happy to turn a blind eye when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering thousands of Kurds for fun, as long as the French oil tankers could still load up. Is that more or less troublesome than the Americans picking up a United Nations mandate and executing it when no one else will?

    16. Re:Yeah... by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      France was more than happy to turn a blind eye when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering thousands of Kurds for fun, as long as the French oil tankers could still load up. Is that more or less troublesome than the Americans picking up a United Nations mandate and executing it when no one else will?

      You know, I was with you rightg up until this last statement. I'm no fan of French foreign policy, but the US doesn't exactly have clean hands here. The US was just as buddy-buddy with Iraq as the French were, for quite a long time. I mean, you can find file photos of Don Rumsfeld (the last time he was in office) hanging out with Saddam Hussein. The US supplied Iraq with weapons for quite a few years (all prior to the 1st Gulf war of course). The US didn't give a rat's ass about Hussein's brutality until it suited their own agenda - just like the French.

      Should Hussein have been booted from Kuwait back in '91? Yeah. Should the current action in Iraq have occurred? Not for the reasons that were given. Which is why the US is now grasping at the whole "slaughtered Kurds" thing. For starters, that happened a number of years ago, so why wasn't anything done at the time? Secondly, if you want to use that justification ("save the oppressed people") for invasion then the US shouldn't be continuing to support other dictatorial regimes around the world (the Saudis for starters). Nor should it have supported Hussein in the past.

    17. Re:Yeah... by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      I RTFAd after posting.

      Still, if the US goes a little more crazy than it is, hopefully Galileo can be updated to not honor US GPS dickery...

      Good chance that hope will be dashed too?

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    18. Re:Yeah... by thisgooroo · · Score: 1
      France was more than happy to turn a blind eye when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering thousands of Kurds for fun, as long as the French oil tankers could still load up.

      Uh, would you mind telling us what the US did about it while they loaded their tankers with iraqi oil and gleefully watched while saddam conducted a war against iran (even taking down an iranian passenger jet)? curious minds would like to know

    19. Re:Yeah... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      > The U.S. does not want to be the world's policeman.

      Oh, absolutely. The US is absolutely 100% not keen on spending any money or risking their troops' lives for any reason, except when something happens which may threaten America's influence in any part of the world, thereby possibly having economical repercussion for them.

      FYI the US has bombed 26 countries since 1945. The US is the most warlike country in existence today by any measure you can care to mention.

  13. 150,000 jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That figure does not seem right to me.

    1. Re:150,000 jobs? by daniil · · Score: 1

      This, and the "private sector will pay for it" argument were most probably made to justify the cost of the system. People are going to ask questions about what good will this rather expensive system do to them and it's easier to explain it in terms of jobs created than, say, increased accuracy or independence from the GPS system.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
  14. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, instead of just one precise missile they'll just fire a whole bunch of unprecise ones. Trust me "collateral damage" won't be concern for some nation like that. Or if it is China, they surely can develop a missile that as it gets closer can recognize the target by visual clues.

  15. First hand information by Einherjer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am one of those who is actually working on the EGNOS ground segment (something like the USA's WAAS). The current system test bed is designed to create a position-delta to feed with the GPS signal to make positioning more exact. Once all Galileo satellites are up, we do not rely on GPS data anymore, but we can fallback if it is possible. One thing to note, Galileo has indoor positioning.
    (Yes, Galileo will be a really independent system, comprising of many different parts, under civil guidance for civil uses.)

    One the political side, from a developers point of view, we really want to get this thing up as fast as possible because everyone I know who is developing is really really fed up with the way the US government tries to control our scientific and especially space-research specific endeavours. Since we have developed a system that is clearly superior to anything the USA have (never mind the 20 years of operation of GPS, you could have progressed too...) we really really hate it, when we get told to stop to work on it by a foreign government. To make things clear, no we don't hate Americans. We hate the way the American government is treating us, and the more they want to sabotage our projects the better our projects will be. :-)

    1. Re:First hand information by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      This 'ere EGGNOG system. Is it up and running in the UK? Is it compatible with WAAS, can I get a WAAS based GPS and get the benefits from EGGNOG?

      --
      Did he inhale?
    2. Re:First hand information by Einherjer · · Score: 1

      joker :) but I will respond anyway.

      EGNOS = European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service

      There is the ESTB (EGNOS System Test Bed) which is generating the information, currently located in Toulouse, France. Yes, you can get EGNOS-data in UK.
      And no, it won't make sense, because WAAS only works above the USA. (as EGNOS only works over Europe)

    3. Re:First hand information by Anoraknid+the+Sartor · · Score: 1

      I reckon a GPS based WASS would stop all those "CEETWET" problems that afflict the current implementation, particularly after a night out on the TIE-ALS

      Please the GURLFREND too...

      --
      Find Japanese addresses in English on Google Maps Japan: http://diddlefinger.com/
    4. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Galileo will be a significant improvement to the current GPS systems. But it seems like there are so many things that the money could be better spent on. (Basic research, education, world hunger, disease, care for the elderly...) GPS is already good enough for now.

    5. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yep, and we didn't need the Iraq war either. The money for this war could have been better spent on.

    6. Re:First hand information by thogard · · Score: 1

      And how does this work indoors? GPS works indoors too but not too good if the roof is decent. Repeaters have been used for nearly a decade as have pseudolites. The problem is a low cast psuedolite is a low cost gps jammer too.

    7. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering Europe seems to be sleeping with the US, I'm really surprised they're deploying their own GPS technology.
      If Bush has his way, world domination will be his. My wonder is, is the US government emulating Microsoft, or is Microsoft emulating the US government? Both are after complete domination, both use rhetoric to make it sound like they're playing by the rules, both use strong arm tactics. And I hate them both.

    8. Re:First hand information by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      "can I get a WAAS based GPS and get the benefits from EGGNOG?"

      Yes. My Garmin eTrex Vista can pick up the EGNOS system.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    9. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree- spend money on research and education. But then looking at Alabama - the US forgot the education as well.
      On the whole - Western Europe is much better educated than North America.
      We also teach science - not leaving out portions for right wing religeous reasons..
      Oh - and my kids never had to worry about guns in school.

      Galileo could have meant we wouldnt have to face segregation when PNAC and Mr Bush (who has a Confederate flag on his wall) decide to start a world campaign gassing muslims, gays and blacks - or at least with our own system we would have half a chance. Unfortunately - we signed an agreement that means they could still degrade the signal for Europe.

    10. Re:First hand information by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      I am one of those who is actually working on the EGNOS ground segment (something like the USA's WAAS). The current system test bed is designed to create a position-delta to feed with the GPS signal to make positioning more exact.

      I noticed that the EGNOS launch (i.e. end of the test phase) has been pushed back to the new year (it used to be listed as the start of 2004 Q4). The ESA site seems reasonably void of a more specific schedule - are you aware if any specific launch date is currently planned for the service, or is it currently just "some time in 2005 Q1"?

    11. Re:First hand information by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, is the system being set up to allow space positioning? I have always thought that the right way to encourage space development is to lower the cost of putting a bird up AND keeping it up. if the system can be used to position others birds, then it lowers the true costs for all the satellites.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    12. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't sweat it. MS's advancement is now slowed or stopped in every country except the USA. Sadly, Bush has made it his agenda to turn America to a BSOD. Literally.

    13. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      To make things clear, no we don't hate Americans. We hate the way the American government is treating us,

      You forget your place. The American Government has a mandate from the American People. And the People support our government, all the way.

      You hate our government => you hate us.

    14. Re:First hand information by Einherjer · · Score: 1

      The satellite will be launched in March if I remember correctly.
      Meanwhile, you can get EGNOS data via the internet via the sisnet platform.

      http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/egnos/estb/sisne t/sisnet.htm

    15. Re:First hand information by palion · · Score: 1

      And people like you certainly don't make it easier for us Europeans to like you.

      --
      Well, well
    16. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but none of those "problems" is a problem in EU, except perhaps indirectly world hunger, which we are spending money on. Especially considering who is the one wasting most money on Earth on stupid military projects and waging unneeded wars.

      Also, GPS might barely be good enough, but it's hard to trust something that is controlled by idiots.

      How about YOU guys across the pond start putting money into those things and stop telling us what to do? They do seem to be more severely lacking in US.

      Not to mention, most of the money is probably going to stay in Europe, creating all those jobs, etc, so it's not really a cost at all, heck, with China and India contributing, it might even bring more money in than is going out.

    17. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The American Government has a mandate from the American People.

      That reminds me. I forgot to apologize to the world after the election.

      "I'm really really sorry we re-elected Bush. We really did all we could, but he was using even dirtier tactics than M$."

    18. Re:First hand information by IO+ERROR · · Score: 5, Interesting
      To make things clear, no we don't hate Americans. We hate the way the American government is treating us

      We Americans hate the way the American government is treating us, too. At this point we've mostly lost control of our government. This place looks like any other third-world banana republic, except we have a new dictator every few years.

      And from a U.S. national's point of view, I really want you to get this thing up as soon as possible so I can have one in my pocket.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    19. Re:First hand information by Kaemaril · · Score: 1

      The American Government has a mandate from the American People. And the People support our government, all the way.

      If I had mod points now, I'd mod this up as funny.

    20. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it with Americans and Capitalized Words? Do you think it Looks Nicer?

    21. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, Americans think they are so much better just because they have enough guns and nukes to kill everyone on Earth (more than twice, too). We sissy Europeans aren't killed when we are 11 in school by someone who's 10, and when we are 20 many of us haven't seen a gun IRL. I bet that's what makes us so "sissy". Violence is not the only problem solver (this might be unknown to you), and you don't need to be scared of a GPS system anyway. But on the other hand, Americans are afraid of everything.

      Now go back to the police state where you came from and continue spreading the bullshit to please Gestapo or whatever you Americans call your freedom police force. Here in Europe we are still allowed to think, say and write whatever we want. Do YOU hate OUR freedom?

    22. Re:First hand information by i41Overlord · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "To make things clear, no we don't hate Americans. We hate the way the American government is treating us"

      Me too, and I live in the US!

    23. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow.

      Now let me tell you a thing or two, mister. Exactly what 'place' has the gp been allocated by you? Is he a gook, a cook, a jap, Eurotrash, nigger or white trash? Because as far as I can see, Europeans ought have the right to live and do research in Europe without the American government interfering in their lives, too.

      FYI: You just created the perfect script to hand to some Soviet kid to read aloud twenty years ago. Just replace American by Soviet.

      Assuming you're not just pulling legs, of course.

    24. Re:First hand information by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      We Americans hate the way the American government is treating us, too. At this point we've mostly lost control of our government. This place looks like any other third-world banana republic, except we have a new dictator every few years.

      Wake up, get real. If it were like any other third-world banana republic, Kerry would never have lived to see election day.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    25. Re:First hand information by argStyopa · · Score: 0

      1) "the way the US government tries to control our scientific and...space-research"

      Well, last time I checked, there weren't US Army Rangers kicking down the door of your research lab. So, how exactly is the US "controlling" your research? Please don't tell me that we are threatening to refuse funding, that would just be too ironic.

      2) "Since we have developed a system that is clearly superior to anything the USA have (never mind the 20 years of operation of GPS, you could have progressed too...)"

      Who says we haven't? Duh, let me see - the US introduced a system with unheard of accuracy, with a step-down for civilian uses. Shortly, the world tech community figured out a way to recalculate the stepdown so that they could share the precision the military used. Let me see - if we developed a more precise and robust version of the tech, do you think it would be ANNOUNCED? Geez.

      You hate the way the American government is treating you? That's funny, I thought that it was your government treating you (in what ever way you don't like) at the request of the US gov't. If you don't like it, I thought you were at least nominally a democracy - change your government.

      --
      -Styopa
    26. Re:First hand information by Jameth · · Score: 1

      "This place looks like any other third-world banana republic, except we have a new dictator every few years."

      Not only is that not true in its comparison, that is an insult to those who have had to overcome worse troubles in the past.

      Look at the Sedition Act of 1918 which disallowed "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" against the US government. Look into the events surrounding WWII and internment camps against Japanese Americans. Take a look at McCarthyism in all its horrible glory.

      We've done worse and come out stronger on the other side. We can come through this just fine as well, so long as we try.

    27. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, over 50% of you are to blame which tells me that 50% of americans are fucking stupid.

    28. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what you wish were true.

    29. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think Galileo receivers will be for sale in the US?

      The way it looks, selling, buying, and owning them will be illegal because they can be used for... ...insert catchphrase used for 3 years now to account for just about anything. Hint: the word begins with a 't'.

    30. Re:First hand information by thisgooroo · · Score: 1
      Oh - and my kids never had to worry about guns in school.

      europe had a few incidents as well. the last one was in erfurt, but i also baguely remember something in the uk a while back

    31. Re:First hand information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are being pig-headed.
      "Well, last time I checked, there weren't US Army Rangers kicking down the door of your research lab."

      Economic persuasion is a perfectly legitimate method of control. Unfortunately, one does not simply ignore US demands with impunity. Look at what happened to Iraq. (no, it won't happen in the EU, but that is the way the US reacts)
    32. Re:First hand information by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      At this point we've mostly lost control of our government. This place looks like any other third-world banana republic, except we have a new dictator every few years.


      Who's the "we" that's lost control of the government? 51% of Americans feel completely in control and couldn't be happier. While I'm not one of those 51% it seems rather ridiculous to compare the US to a bananna republic. The American people re-elected Bush, and if you want to blame someone, blame the 51%.

      --
      AccountKiller
  16. Buy it from the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The Europeans should buy it from the US with the dollar so weak at the moment it will be a steal.

    1. Re:Buy it from the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What??? It'd cost about $20 billion dollars to buy! That's over 2 million Euros.

  17. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Idiot, the two systems *are* designed to work together

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

      But Washington and Brussels signed an agreement in June to adopt compatible operating standards.
      These technical parameters will allow either side to effectively jam the other's signal in a small area, such as a battlefield, without shutting down the entire system.

    2. Re:RTFA by MurphyZero · · Score: 1

      NOt only that, But I believe there are systems being designed to work with both GPS and Galileo, plus GLONASS (designed for higher latitudes--North Pole anyone? USSR now Russian system.) Plus, for those folks in Asia, there are localized guidance satellite systems based on geosynchronous satellite solutions. Those countries will likely deploy nav system that use the local plus GPS plus Galileo.

      --
      Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
  18. China by malx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the most controversial aspects of this proposal is China's involvement. Although the EU maintains that Galileo is only for civilian use, it appears that China disagrees.

    Russia and China each have a 20% stake in the Galileo project, having invested 200 million euros. India has also pledged 300 million euros.

    Apparently the EU has promised India that Galileo would not be denied to them in the event of anything less than "global war", making its use available during more limited military conflicts. It is hard to imagine that China has negotiated anything less.

    This had led to speculation that the USA would simply shoot it down to prevent its use by hostile military powers.

    The EU Referendum blog has been covering this assiduously.

    1. Re:China by Xtian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, I see... its okay that the US uses its own GPS system for military purposes, and lets the countries it wants to also use it for military purposes, but if Europe decides to allow other countries to use Galileo for military purposes than the US is ofcourse right to shoot it down?

      Would the logical conclusion of this be that the EU has the right to shoot down the US GPS system if the EU felt the GPS system was being used by countries against the best interests of the EU?

    2. Re:China by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine a war between the US and China being anything but a global conflict.

      In reality, the US would not shoot down Galileo since that in itself would be an act of war and I would expect the US would rather we Europeans were with it rather than against it.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    3. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoot it down? Are you ALL fucking nutts in America?!

      Still, I hope you would try doing it...

    4. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoot down? No. A gentle nudge from a stealth space cleanup tug would do the trick. Afterall, there's a lot of space junk up there already and it would just be an "accident".

      Of course, "big rocks" hit the Earth's atmosphere all the time so it's possible one of those might hit Galileo too.

      Lots of fun possibilities.

    5. Re:China by dave1g · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well yes, both sides can shoot the other's down, but that might be considered an act of war.

      When the context is international law and war, talking about rights doesn't get you far, because not much is based on them in this area.

    6. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, like 20 separate "accidents" for each of the satellites and nobody would suspect anything? Man, not everybody is American, you know..

    7. Re:China by metricmusic · · Score: 1

      It says nothing of the sort on that blog entry you linked to. The author of that entry was just giving his opinion. Tell me when theres actually a spokesperson from china saying that and then your statement might be correct.

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
    8. Re:China by johannesg · · Score: 1
      I suspect the US doesn't give a flying fuck who is with them anymore. If shooting down a 3-4 billion euro satellite system is what they need, they might just do it and all repercussions be damned.

      The EU cannot wage a military conflict against the US, but a trade war could be extremely painful as well. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if, a decade from now, we will find ourselves in the middle of a new cold war, this time between the US and the EU. Not necessarily over the shooting down of spacecraft, but there are plenty of other potential and real conflicts. I certainly remember the days when "allies" didn't mean "lackeys" and "coalition" didn't mean "suckers"...

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

      Reading that blog I would be more worried of India than China. 300Euro vs china's 200 says India gets a bigger say.

    10. Re:China by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      No, that's not a good move. Having the world disagree is one thing, having the world gunning for you all at once is another. The US might be crazy, but we're not stupid.

      As for the rest of your post, chilling thought...Man, i just want a nice place to live in, why does my country have to get all troublemaker and shit right as I enter adulthood? *sigh* If it's any consolation, my generation (I'm 23) is sick of most of this crap and it won't be happening in the future, let's hope we're not ruined by then...

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    11. Re:China by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      When soldiers are actually dying on a battlefield, the notion of fairness goes out the window. The whole idea of war is to NOT fight fair, but to totally dominate your opponent.

      Obviously the US isn't out to start a war with the EU, and they're not going to shoot down Galileo the first time somebody blows up a truck full of explosives in Iraq. However, if the Chinese were to launch an invasion of Taiwan and it was clear that denying the use of Galileo to China would give the US a tactical advantage, then the EU would probably be given an ultimatum - turn it off over China or have it disabled. Most likely the US would try jamming or other temporary measures to disable satellites over the battle zone.

      It would really depend on what kind of war the US ended up in. High-precision GPS doesn't have many military applications outside of guiding bombs, and the Chinese don't seem to have made much use of it (probably because they can't rely on high precision GPS being available in any war they fight). If the enemy isn't benefitting from Galileo, then the US probably won't make a big deal about it.

      The position of the US on something like Galileo would probably be most comparable to the US position on the delivery of machine parts on a EU-flagged vessel to an enemy at a time of war. Sure, they're dual-use, but that doesn't mean that the ship won't get boarded or even sunk.

    12. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is obvious. If an adversary is using guided missles controlled by Galileo why in the world would the US just let them strike thier targets? The Russians AND Chinese both have anti-satalitte missles for the exact same reason.

    13. Re:China by Snaller · · Score: 1

      This had led to speculation that the USA would simply shoot it down [blogspot.com] to prevent its use by hostile military powers.


      Well, someone has to start world war 3.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    14. Re:China by legirons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Would the logical conclusion of this be that the EU has the right to shoot down the US GPS system if the EU felt the GPS system was being used by countries against the best interests of the EU?"

      Short answer: Yes

      Longer answer: Yes, obviously.

    15. Re:China by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      Well, that's sort of the idea of war.

      The enemy uses some technology you don't like, or don't want them to have, you attack the source of that technology.

      It's just that now, you don't attack on the enemy's own territory, but rather you attack something in orbit.

      So yeah, the US is perfectly within its rights to say "We'll shoot down satellites being used against our interests," and the EU has the exact same right.

      p

    16. Re:China by calidoscope · · Score: 1
      I can't imagine a war between the US and China being anything but a global conflict.

      Who said anything about China's pribcipal opponent being the US?

      China is devloping a very unique vulnerability - the Three Gorges Dam. All someone has to do to creat a huge amount of damage is to drop a small nuke in the water just behind the dam - especially when the dam is near full.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    17. Re:China by jlehtira · · Score: 1

      There's really nothing right about war, nor could there be a "right" to harm others. One shouldn't pretend that mass destruction could be justifiable. It can't. That aside, sometimes it might be necessary evil, but never forget it's evil. Or you might end up.. Well, making the same mistakes USA is making.

      Certainly, in serious, necessary war we all expect our enemies to target and destroy whatever they can. Bullying EU at current times is something different. It's like telling your roommate or neighbor that you feel intimidated about the fact they own a gun/knife and that you might need to kill them in case you were worried enough someday.

  19. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 Insightful

  20. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If there's one thing you should remember from the comments on this topic, it is that the USA pisses a lot of people off. Instead of telling them that they should not be pissed off, maybe you need to start thinking about why people are so aggravated.

  21. Commercial Use Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I believe that greatest difference between the US and European systems is that one is a commercial system with guaranteed availability that will allow it to be relied on because it won't be turned off or made less accurate by political decisions.

    This makes it suitable for air traffic control and other applications where a system that might be switched off with no notice cannot be used.

    1. Re:Commercial Use Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPS is allready used in aircraft and has the FAA's blessing, its not going to just be turned off by the USA, the European system could be jammed if the USA wanted too so its not "guaranteed availability" as you say.

  22. Again-- please grow up and realize that there are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Again-- please grow up and realize that there are hostiles in the world, and it is a constant struggle to stay ahead."

    Yeah - And the US is the most hostile of them all!
    Who else believe that bombing people will make them friends.

  23. oh geeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this just a pork-barrel project, or something Europe really needs to break the reliance on U.S. space technology?

    If you missed everything else in the last few years, how about this one reminder: "freedom fries."

    All the other good reasons for it aside, that one act by congress made it very clear to all Europe that they're not dealing with adults.

    1. Re:oh geeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot is great, but its editors are americans, hence, the slightly insular bent of the editorials. Its very quaint. The language "pork barrel" is uniquely american for a start...but thats besides the point.

      This is a question of geopolitics, and americans consistently fail it when it comes to anything to do with other countries.

      When Galileo launches, it will constitute a threat to the usa and its invading hordes. The GPS system is frequently crippled when the usa goes into the battle theatre; Galileo will provide a superior alternative system that the usa cannot cripple at will. Imagine that scenario; "enemy" troops simply ignoring the low res GPS system for Galileo, left in high res mode deliberatly by the EU.

      Now, with that 30 second bit of "what if" thinking, how could anyone that is serious minded call Galileo "pork barrel"?

    2. Re:oh geeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ... "freedom fries.

      Yeh - that was silly. Now for something that isn't so silly.

      Forward US bases that can't be used because the host country has a different agenda is a total waste and redeploying them away from unsupportive European governments is the right thing to do.

      The US should maintain only the minimum required to fulfill current (mostly NATO) treaty obligations and seek to reduce those obligations further. Let the Europeans enjoy spending billions of Euros on their own defense. The US has spent enough. Time for Europe to grow up.

      First round of base redeployments should be those in Germany and Turkey.

    3. Re:oh geeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the current state of affairs in the world, it doesn't appear to me that there are many people acting like adults anywhere.

    4. Re:oh geeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European countries are already spending billions of Euros for military. To keep the localized military industries alive lot of spending goes into research and only little into procurement.

      To be able to perform effective spending the european military industry needs to consolidate. This is what the european armarment agency is planned for.

      I think the NATO needs to completely reshape. It is unable to make decisions in time because the European side cannot agree on something. Withdrawing the troops in large numbers will force a military integration at least at continental Europe. I guess this in itself will result in a more realistic EU policy which could very well revive NATO.

    5. Re:oh geeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you really think that the US was spending billions of dollars to "defend" Europe out of the kidness of their hearts, then you must be really really really naive.

      Growing up in a place where every 10 minutes we had to suffer a sonic boom from American hotdogging jets (even though they were forbidden to do so), where every other night drunken American GIs would rampage through the night life spots, and having to suffer American customers behations while working as a kid... that made us oh so happy to have that big massive US base near by! Thank goodness we were being protected!! Oh, and when years after the Americans were gone it was discovered that they had stockpiled shitloads of nuclear weapons in Spanish soil, when the treaty explicitly forbade Americans from doing so. And adding to the fact that an American bomber actually dropped an H-Bomb which is still somewhere off the coast of our country. That made us feel oh so safe and secure.

      We did not even got a single dime from the Marshall plan. We had no American help when we needed them, we were starved to death after WWII by an American led blockade, then when someone saw a map and realized what a great position (geographically) we where in. Then the US decides to arm to the teeth the same dictator for which we had been starved. And then when we finally get our act together and politely ask them to leave, your government throws a hissy fit because it can no longer use our airspace as its own personal backyard... and we are not willing to send our kids to die in the sand for your presiden't massive coumpounded fuck up.

      So please spare me the whole "we were defeding you with our taxpayer money" bullshit.

      In reality we were nothing more than a very big massive aircraft carrier for the Americans. So that America could project power in both sides of the Atlantic, and more imortantly so that the possible fight between the former Soviet block and the Americans could have been located somewhere else but American soil. I can assure you that the well being and protection of my country was the least of the concerns when American troops were being deployed over there.

      We grew up long time ago, I believe it is time for you Americans to do so too, and start realizing that you look out for your own interests (and good for you btw) just like everybody elese. But please spare me the knight in shiny armour movie bullshit... thanks.

    6. Re:oh geeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck are you talking about, you really believe all US propaganda you read? The EU really doesn't need the US to defend itself and the combined structural spending on military in the EU is in the same order of magnitude as it is in the US.

      By the way, the US troops are in Europe to defend US interests against the communists. The US just isn't mature enough to realize that that threath is over and they are just wasting money.

    7. Re:oh geeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To add:
      The US was not interested in freeing Europe, it was interested in revenge when Nazi subs sinked US ships. And that was long _after_ half of France was taken and the UK was about to go (thus crippling US warfare industry because there are no more foreign takers).

      So please don't mix up economics and freedom..

    8. Re:oh geeze... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% correct, in fact and tone.

      VIVA ESPANIA!!!
      VIVA JUAN CARLOS!!!

      Spain is leading the way in the EU, in other words, not acting like a bunch of slaves, but rather like free human beings with morals.

  24. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Goonie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why should that piss you off? As a citizen of the US, I absolutely DO NOT want a third party to be able to accurately aim a missile at the White House, the Capitol, or a nuclear power plant.

    You grow up. Anybody with the technology to build a missile with enough range, payload and accuracy to hit those targets effectively has the ability to make a nuclear weapon - which makes the issue of accurate targetting moot.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  25. Galileo? by payndz · · Score: 0
    Magnifico-oh-oh-oh-oh!

    No doubt the Pentagon is already offering a contract for 150 or so new anti-satellite missiles...

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  26. Double standards by simgod · · Score: 1

    Talk about expensive. According to a new budget USA is planning to put a 9.5 billion satellite system in space to watch me showing them my ass.

    1. Re:Double standards by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Believe me, we are not putting up a system to watch your ass. We did that 20 years ago. Now, we are putting up a system to watch all of America all the time AND to shoot your ass off :)

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  27. Alternatively by aepervius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Terrorist instead of using an expensive GPS tracked device, use the old "visual" guidance missile (can't remmember the name), or put themselves in a truck loaded with diesel fuel and chemicals and ram it in the building they want to target. Heck Mc veigh with his truck and bombing did not need GPS. Even better , we are speaking here of people which do not qualm at dying for their cause. So they have de-facto ther best guidance system of the world : themselves. So i do not think terrorist are the key here.

    I think the key is that the US military ensure they have an incredible advantage over the opposition, so degradation should be there only in case of military operation. I seriously doubt that a degradation would occurs on US soil just for anti-terrorist purpose.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Alternatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, dude.... You realise that grandparent put "terrorists" in quotes, right?

    2. Re:Alternatively by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if the terrorists on 9/11 had used GPS they would have been able to find the whitehouse (for those that don't know the story I've heard (and it is a story ;)) is that they were looking for the whitehouse, but from above it looked like a lot of the buildings around it so they gave up and went for the pentagon (which was like a pentagon-shaped bullseye)).

    3. Re:Alternatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Terrorist instead of using an expensive GPS tracked device, use the old "visual" guidance missile (can't remmember the name),

      I think they are called eyes. :-)

    4. Re:Alternatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their aircraft would have had a navigation system

    5. Re:Alternatively by beaverfever · · Score: 1

      "I seriously doubt that a degradation would occurs on US soil just for anti-terrorist purpose."

      Well, it was degraded until 2000, but that is no longer US policy.

      excerpt (about 50%) from forbes.com

      Prior to 2000, civilian GPS signals were deliberately degraded, leaving nonmilitary equipment with a margin of error of about 300 feet. But that year, then-President Bill Clinton ordered the so-called selective availability (SA) feature turned off. That made the systems the business community uses accurate to within 30 feet and sparked a lot of the increased usage we see today. Sales of civilian GPS equipment hit $4.7 billion last year, according to analyst Ron Stearns of Frost & Sullivan in San Jose, Calif., up from $3.9 billion in 2002. By 2008, nonmilitary sales could be $10.8 billion.

      So far, civilian signal accuracy has held, even after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the war in Afghanistan; SA has remained off during the war in Iraq. An accurate GPS system for civilians and military personnel alike is now a matter of national policy, says the Interagency GPS Executive Board, a U.S. government agency, which reaffirmed its policy in a statement posted to its Web site last week.

      "We are not planning to degrade GPS, and there are no plans to degrade GPS," says Jason Kim, a GPS board spokesman. "The decision to turn off SA was a serious national policy decision. Obviously it could be overruled, but no one is seriously contemplating that right now."

      There are no export restrictions on civilian GPS technology, so potential U.S. enemies could easily buy the equipment and attempt to use it to their advantage. Still, it makes little sense for the U.S. to revert to the fuzzy civilian signal. Even under dire military emergencies, doing so would give U.S. forces no advantage. Terrorist attacks don't call for much navigation precision. The military has it own highly accurate tamper-proof encrypted signal that civilian equipment can't receive. ...if the U.S. needs to deny GPS use to Iraqi forces, it is understood to have the ability to do so. Glen Gibbons, a GPS analyst who also edits a technical magazine on the technology, says the Air Force can send false GPS-like signals over selected areas that would prompt civilian equipment to show incorrect position data. Says Gibbons of the military: "Their plans involve doing something in the area of operations, but not to the satellites themselves."

    6. Re:Alternatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and the fact that Bush was not in the White House, but Fort William (shaking hands and holding babies). He actually ignored the reports for about 10-15 minutes (looking a little worried) before boarding Airforce One.

      What they needed to do to take out Bush was recruit Dick Cheney as a suicide bomber. Given the Isreali Jews were the original suicide bombers(just after the war, in jerusalem - they blew up British targets in a successful terrorist campaign - the organisers of which still have strong ties to the Isreali government) - he would have done a good job.

    7. Re:Alternatively by Alioth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Terrorist instead of using an expensive GPS tracked device, use the old "visual" guidance missile (can't remmember the name),

      The name you want for the visual guidance system is "suicide bomber".
    8. Re:Alternatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Good god! Read the 9/11 Commission Report! It cost millions of dollars, cost years of 9/11 family lobbying, and really pissed off and upturned the Republican administration all so you could understand what happened on that day. Its also free.

      The report states in detail that of the 4 hijacks, 2 were headed towards DC. One hit the Pentagon. This attack was obviously intented for the Pentagon (I see no evidence of looking around, or flexability, to hit other targets).
      At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.

      At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.61 All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.
      The other aircraft was headed towards the Capitol of the White House. Interviews with al Qaeda detainees revealed that the White House was the primary target but the Capitol would be hit if the White House couldn't be easily seen from the air.
      In another exchange between Atta and Binalshibh on September 9-two days before the attacks-it still appears as though the White House would be the primary target for the fourth plane and the U.S. Capitol the alternate. See CIA report, Documents captured with KSM, Sept. 24, 2003.
      As far as the importance of GPS: the report does mention that one hijacker bought one unit. It doesn't go into detail on how it was used. Considering that the hijackers and plotters were debating over the difficulty of seeing the White House from the air, I doubt they considered doing an instrument 'landing'.
    9. Re:Alternatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wow you have alot of hate! I will assume that the truth has no affect on you and your anti-semitism. Anyways to set the record straight (and put your exaggeration in perspective), the 9/11 report states:
      White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told us he was standing with the President outside the classroom when Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove first informed them that a small, twin-engine plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. The President's reaction was that the incident must have been caused by pilot error....Before entering the classroom, the President spoke to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who was at the White House. She recalled first telling the President it was a twin-engine aircraft-and then a commercial aircraft-that had struck the World Trade Center....The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05,Andrew Card whispered to him: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the children; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening. The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15, where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage.
    10. Re:Alternatively by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      :)

      In the military, it's often referred to as the "mk 1 eyeball". Something to be said for it. The resolution, focussing speed, and tracking ability can't easily be beaten.

    11. Re:Alternatively by javiercero · · Score: 1

      It is not hate, but historical fact. Unless you are an American, in which case you have not much historical background and it is understandable. The state of Israel was funded by terrorist. Whether it is morally good or bad, it is left as a matter of opinion.

      As usual a terrorist is some body else's freedom fighter.

      "America is under attack." The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The press was standing behind the children; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening."

      LOL, I guess that is what the deer we encoutered last night on the road was trying to project... strength and calm when it saw our car coming for it.

    12. Re:Alternatively by juhaz · · Score: 1

      mk 1? hardly, it's been trough uncountable number of iterations and redevelopment.

    13. Re:Alternatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "It is not hate, but historical fact."
      What they needed to do to take out Bush was recruit Dick Cheney as a suicide bomber. Given the Isreali Jews were the original suicide bombers...he would have done a good job.
      Not hate? Who are you kidding? If you wish to cite facts, cite the relevant statement so that it can be peer reviewed. If you wish to make opinions, continue on your present path. But please don't use the term 'fact' when you mean 'opinion'.

      Just out of curiousity, what do you base this statement on?
      Unless you are an American, in which case you have not much historical background and it is understandable.
      Are you trying to say that some societies are more biased than others to certain aspects of history? I agree. But if you are trying to make a blanket statement that every American doesn't understand the history of the conflict in the Middle East in an unbiased fashion, I would disagree. Most are biased, but there are many who are unbiased. To become unbiased requires an almost Herculean effort to get past the U.S. conservative biased media in one corner, the European liberal biased media in another corner, and the radial Middle East closed media in the last. But some do it.
    14. Re:Alternatively by nyekulturniy · · Score: 1

      The navigation system wouldn't have told a relatively untrained pilot where they were, and the White House is also surrounded by a number of buildings approximately the same height or higher, such as the Executive Office Building, the Old Executive Office Building, the stuff on 15th and G Street, and so forth. The only clear approach would have been from the south, and there was, ironically, too much of a risk of a mid-air collision from traffic at National Airport.

      --
      Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
    15. Re:Alternatively by Kerstyun · · Score: 0
      "mk 1? hardly, it's been trough uncountable number of iterations and redevelopment."

      Preachin' evilution is a sin, repent or be dammed.

      --
      Keep the whitehouse white, vote Trump & Palin 2020.
    16. Re:Alternatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      From Wikipedia:
      "The phrase "war on terrorism" was first widely used by the Western press to refer to the efforts by the British colonial government to end a spate of Jewish terrorist attacks in the British Mandate of Palestine in the late 1940s. The British proclaimed a "war on terrorism" and attempted to crack down on Irgun, Lehi, and anyone perceived to be cooperating with them. The Jewish attacks, Arab reprisals, and the subsequent British crackdown hastened the British evacuation from Palestine."


      I have no idea what the original AC you were argueing with was talking about in regards to Dick Cheney though.
    17. Re:Alternatively by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Read it? Pfft, it's probably in PDF format/too long/my dog ate it/other.

      And my comment was meant as a light-hearted one. Not a serious suggestion that the hijackers should have used GPS. I also added in a story I heard that I don't really care if it's true. It's an amusing story.

      If I had any intention of actually believing the story I'd do the research to find out if it is true.

    18. Re:Alternatively by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (In the best Peter Griffin's voice I can muster) C'mon! C'MON!

      Any American citizen has a duty to educate themselves about the conflicts our country is engaged in and the 9/11 Report is an important educational item. I think every citizen has a duty to read it, or at least skim over the important pieces. It covers:

      The history of Al Qaeda
      US response on that day
      The Iraqi involvement (none found!)
      The Iranian involvement (some found!)
      US counterterrorism efforts
      Previous terrorist attacks
      Why they hate us
      How we must change to defeat terrorism

      Considering that the current administration went to war with Iraq and claimed that 9/11 was a major factor, contrary to the report, is significant. More significant is that most Americans believe that Iraq helped plan the 9/11 attacks. How many people voted without the correct information? I think its very likely that if more Americans had read this report the results of the election would have been different. If you read this report and someone spouts out a common misperception, you can clarify it with the facts. When it comes to politics the report takes the middle ground and you will need to do further research, but when it comes to the facts of what, when, how, and who, the report is very informative.

    19. Re:Alternatively by kentmartin · · Score: 1

      Oh - c'mon - the whitehouse is one of the most recognisable buildings on earth. I've never seen it, but I am damned sure I could spot it from the air based on pictures in the popular media (I have a PPL and, during training, they ask you to spot far trickier things than that, even if they are surrounded by other buildings or terrain - don't get me started on the bloody "dam wall" I could never find!). Incidentally, we did all this without GPS, with GPS and it would have been even simpler. In fact, if you didn't wanna use/train on the in-aircraft one, a small handheld job would've done quite nicely.

      Finally, "too much of a risk of a mid-air collision". I think not, mid air collisions tend to only happen in one of three different ways:

      1) Under VFR (visual flight rules) where the pilot has responsibility to maintain a lookout and avoid collisions that way. These types of accidents are most common when in the circuit pattern.

      2) When the controller makes a mistake.

      3) When one or both pilots ignore/misunderstand controller instructions as well as ignore their TCAS (can't remember what that stands for, I've never used one, small planes don't have em, Traffic Collision Advisory Service? - basically a little box that tells you who is nearby and what action should be taken to avoid a collision).

      My point with both 2 & 3 is, if the controllers vectors just one of the aircraft appropriately, collision will be avioded (and there is a v. high probability of this happening). If that fails, but, just one of the pilots listens to his TCAS (which is the last line of defense effectively) collision will also almost certainly be avoided.

      Add to that, the chances of hitting another aircraft who isn't going to/coming from the same place that you are is so small anyway (there is a hell of a lot of airspace).

      Frankly I can't imagine they avoided the Whitehouse due to risk of mid air collision.

    20. Re:Alternatively by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      But it's still more or less the same version. Perhaps it's actually version 1.163435395.104824681 or something

    21. Re:Alternatively by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      That's all a very good point :) But all moot as I'm not an American ;)

  28. Re:Global Tracking by zakezuke · · Score: 1
    The idea of the Europeans developing their own network had irked the US Department of Defense, which controls GPS, because of the potential of Galileo's signals interfering with those intended for use by the American military. --TFA


    In the past the DoD has saw fit to essentially turn off GPS to civilian receivers. While the DoD might have good reasons to do this the fact remains that its control remains in the hands of an American military department.
    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  29. Massive fight in the senate by abulafia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The amusing questions won't be asked. But I do wonder if this announcement has anything to do with the unnamed, massive, something-to-do-with-space, spending bill that even pocket Republicans don't want to support.

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
    1. Re:Massive fight in the senate by NSash · · Score: 1

      What's a "pocket Republican"?

    2. Re:Massive fight in the senate by type40 · · Score: 1

      it's a breed of legislator small enough to fit in the breast coat pocket of the party leadership. Their markings are identcal to the Standard Republican (Moral Values Legislator). The primary difference between Pocket and Standard Republicans is that the Pocket verity can only speek in sound bites on AM radio.

      --
      "You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
  30. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by lightknight · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yeah, sure. Look, have you seen the kind of products coming out of China lately? They'd have to fire off 10 nukes, just so one of them could make it across the Pacific (well, Polar Ice cap). Hell, factor out a targetting system like GPS, and on a good day, the nuke would come within a couple miles of its target. And a nuke hitting the Atlantic instead of the White House will have little effect (water dissipates radiation rather quickly, and acts as a wonderful dampening agent). And you can be sure, that while their nukes may miss, ours won't.

    By the time China gets a man on the moon or figures out how to identify a target by sight, nuclear fusion and orbital lasers will be achieved, making the discussion moot.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  31. true need or penis envy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why shouldn't the Europeans find their own toilet to dump money into? Instead of using what the US already provides to them for free, they can puff their chests out on this new high tech black hole instead of spending money on shoring up their social systems. Sounds like penis envy to me.

    1. Re:true need or penis envy? by cycler · · Score: 1

      Europe has bad social system?? I asume you'r from the US in this remark.
      EU consits of a lot of (old) countries with very different social system. Good or not, they are all better than the US. Only in USA you can get denied healthcare because of money (Hey, is this why the presidentcandidate wins with the most money?)

      Like stated above, the only reason EU needs is the one where US cannot be trusted.

      For info: I'm swedish and sorry for misspelling, typed in a hurry.

  32. PS that can be used for landing planes. Woo! by SlashdotMeNow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Another cool thing about the EU's positioning system is that it can potentially be used to land commercial planes on auto-pilot. This is currently not possible with the GPS system because it's controlled by the US army. With a few year's tech advances behind us, the Galileo system should be way more accurate and predictable, making human pilots almost redundant. Perhaps in the not-too distant future we'll only need one on-boad pilot, with co-pilots assigned via remote control only when needed (i.e. when the plane is not on auto-pilot)

    Go EU!

    1. Re:PS that can be used for landing planes. Woo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'd trust a plane that was landed automagically? Not me. I want to keep the pilot in the loop, allow the pilot to override the computer, and have aircraft that have mechanical or hydraulic systems to backup the electronic servos.

      Ask pilots familiar with the A3xx series of planes how comfortable they'd be letting the plane land itself. This is the same plane that tried to go full throttle into the terminal when the towbar on the tug fell off and the pilot hit the brakes to keep the plane from drifting into taxiing traffic. The center of gravity shifted and the nosewheel strut expanded.

      Seems the weenie that wrote the 3XX software figured that if the nose strut expanded you must be taking off so the computer was instructed to force the throttles up full. Only the prompt action of the pilot and first officer prevented an "Airplane" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080339/) moment.

      Oh yes, I avoid all fly-by-wire commercial aircraft (European and US) that don't also have seats made by Martin-Baker (http://www.martin-baker.com/).

    2. Re:PS that can be used for landing planes. Woo! by benmcgruer · · Score: 1

      Actually the current systems in place on commercial planes already allow them to be landed on auto-pilot.

    3. Re:PS that can be used for landing planes. Woo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I want to (...) have aircraft that have mechanical or hydraulic systems to backup the electronic servos.


      You are clearly a technophobic idiot who doesn't know anything about anything. Die, motherfucker!
    4. Re:PS that can be used for landing planes. Woo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Another cool thing about the EU's positioning system is that it can potentially be used to land commercial planes on auto-pilot. This is currently not possible with the GPS system because it's controlled by the US army."

      To be fair, GPS wouldn't be accurate enough for that, even if it were reliable, while Galileo is supposed to be designed with enough accuracy to routinely land planes.

      Presumably it's not vital though, as millimetre-wave ILS (MLS?) and such like can deal with greater accuracy in the small areas it's needed such as runways. And the US must have some way to land UAVs, which implies it's already possible.

    5. Re:PS that can be used for landing planes. Woo! by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      You're not a pilot, are you?

      Human pilots will NEVER be redundant until navigation gets a whole lot better.

      Right now, the US is beginning the deployment of WAAS, a ground-based complement to the GPS system that will allow for precision approaches (though not, I'm told, with enough precision to use auto-land) to airports that are not otherwise served by precision approaches.

      The EU is still in the talking-about-it stage, so claiming that the GPS system is inferior because of something it can't *currently* do is a load of crap. The EU's system can't *currently* do anything but make legislators run their mouths.

      By the time the EU's system gets fully deployed and operational, the US will have WAAS operational across most of the US, making the two systems comparable.

      Now, how is the EU going to make their system better? As far as I'm aware, the plan is for 24 satellites (plus a few backups), the same as the US system. This won't improve satellite availability (the receiver will still only be able to see six satellites at any one time, and will still need four to determine a position solution), and it won't improve outage prediction or compensation for such outages. Something tells me neither the FAA nor the JAA are going to allow either system *by itself* to auto-land aircraft without the aid of a WAAS-like system, and it's HIGHLY unlikely that the use of all 48 (both systems combined) satellites will be approved simply because of the possibility that someone's government is messing with the signal.

      p

  33. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hell no. Relying on the French is a complete waste of time as we have discovered ever since WWII. Estonia? Maybe when they have a launch vehicle and site that can make Earth orbit.

  34. This is Winston.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "I have started a bussiness selling rat-cage face masks. I'm logging off for good now."

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  35. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there's one thing you should remember from the comments on this topic, it is that the USA pisses a lot of people off. Instead of telling them that they should not be pissed off, maybe you need to start thinking about why people are so aggravated.

    But this is an interesting puzzle. We (the US) spent over $10 billion to deploy a very nice global positioning system twenty years ago. Ever since then, we have provided 100% free access of one sort or another to pretty much everyone in the world.

    And yet, somehow this seems to have caused quite a bit of friction. I honestly think that if the US had never allowed civilian access of any kind, there would be much less complaining about GPS.

    Surely it is reasonable to bring up an old adage: "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."

  36. Re:Global Tracking by thogard · · Score: 1

    Can you name a time in the last decade?

    The way the US AF turns off GPS now in a region will also turn off Galileo and GLONASS as well. The idea to turn it off at the sats is old an no longer useful to the the powers that have control of the swtich. The newer stats don't even have the ability to turn on the lie factor SA.

  37. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Yorrike · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "As a citizen of the US, I absolutely DO NOT want a third party to be able to accurately aim a missile at the White House, the Capitol, or a nuclear power plant."

    Last time I checked, the USA did not own space. But I suppose my disagreement with the policy of the US makes me a hostile, so my opinion counts for nothing.

    Well, they would probably grumble a little, then get to work on a way to figure out a way around it, just as they have been doing for decades.

    Rubbish. The US military and government would throw a hissy fit, demanding this and that and threatening sanctions. Just like they've done when countires have threatened other US interests and resources in the past.

    --

    Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

  38. Re:Again-- please grow up and realize that there a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima have hardly hurt our cause. Perhaps bombing does make friends?

    Counterintuitive, yes?

  39. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

    Or, alternatively: Simply don't care that the US pisses people off. This seems to be the prefered method. Understanding is deprecated.

    --
    stuff
  40. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by villo · · Score: 1
    Why should that piss you off? As a citizen of the US, I absolutely DO NOT want a third party to be able to accurately aim a missile at the White House, the Capitol, or a nuclear power plant. These are military assets, not GPL code for the benefit of mankind (the universal GPS was a side benefit, not the purpose).

    Why should that piss you off? As a citizen of the EU, I absolutely DO NOT want a third party to be able to accurately aim a missile at the European Parliament, at one of the national parliaments, or a nuclear power plant. These are military assets, not GPL code for the benefit of mankind (the universal GPS was a side benefit, not the purpose).

    EU goal is to enlarging to East Europe and to incorporate Russia. When it will happen, we will absolutly need a totally EU controlled positioning system: Galileo.

    Don't you like this economic and militar scenario? O:-)

    --
    Ciao da Villo - GPG public key available
  41. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by daniil · · Score: 1

    Erm, dude. Even an Estonian wouldn't rely on an Estonian GPS system. Mostly because we all suffer from some sort of a national inferiority complex: whatever it is that Estonians do, it's shit because, well, they're Estonians.

    --
    Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
  42. Re:Again-- please grow up and realize that there a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because you've killed all of your enemies does not mean that all that remains are friends.

    The US is very effective on killing enemies, but very poor on making friends. But with 10,600 nuclear warheads, who needs friends?

    Oh, of course unless someone thinks that a direct assault is suicide (which it undoubtably is) and tries something a little more clandestine. Friends might be useful then.

  43. Re:Global Tracking by mogglestein · · Score: 1

    So who controls Galileo ? Are they going to turn off galileo if a power or terrorist group uses it in a war against the US, UK, France, etc ? Funny that a poster stated that they had issues with the US GPS system because it's controlled by a foreign govt, yet as far as I see, Galileo will also be controlled by a foreign group, from my (British) POV.

  44. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by hachete · · Score: 1

    My hostiles may, one day, be your friends. Or vice versa. Then the unwisdom of this agreement maybe seen.

    h.

    --
    Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
  45. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    Agreed. It's their money and it's their policy. I do see the EU being a problem militarily for the US but not for some time.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  46. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    heck, they just pack a dozen of their millions-sized army into rockets and let them aim through a windows and balance :)

  47. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by krymsin01 · · Score: 1
    Last time I checked, the USA did not own space.
    Yet.
    --
    stuff
  48. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by sane? · · Score: 5, Informative
    Think you have that one the wrong way round. The US national debt is over $7 trillion, 70% of US GDP. Your economy is being supported by overseas investors, if they lose confidence and withdraw their money - its the US that goes broke.

    By comparison the UK debt is 33% of GDP and the euro countries had deficit targets they had to meet (but often fudged) to join the single currency in the first place.

    The next country to suffer reversal of fortunes and crippling problems is likely to be the US: no plans as to how to deal with your deficit, big costs coming up, and no good will around the world.

  49. Why we need it... by zeux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually we need this system because we need to build a great army for Europ.

    We discovered during the Iraq "big mess" that even if we are against the US there are not a lot a things we can do to prevent the US from doing what it wants. A great army will help us acheiving just that.

    Some people said that the Iraq war almost killed Europ with countries like Poland, Spain and UK not agreeing with the others. This is in fact very wrong since in these countries the people were massively against the war. For this decision, the Spain governement has been overthrown during the last elections and most think that the UK government will pay in the near future too.

    So we have pretty much the same vision, next year we are going to vote for a new constitution and then we'll need an army. Galileo is one step in this process.

    Of course it will also have a huge impact on our economics. This will create jobs but will also allow us to sell a new kind of services, mostly in the transportation market which is about to grow enormously with the e-commerce getting bigger and bigger.

    I believe the US made a mistake in not improving greatly the GPS during the 20 years of operation. Positionning is about to become a huge market and Europ has a clear advance thanks to Galileo where the US could have been so far ahead already...

    1. Re:Why we need it... by skahshah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just one detail: Galileo is much older than the Iraq mess, so what we discovered then had nothing to do with it.

    2. Re:Why we need it... by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      I believe the US made a mistake in not improving greatly the GPS during the 20 years of operation. Positionning is about to become a huge market and Europ has a clear advance thanks to Galileo where the US could have been so far ahead already...

      The US tends to keep all its good stuff secret. You can look at this issue another way and come to the conclusion that it is the US that has a clear advantage considering that it has 20 years of first hand experience in this field. I'm sure they've found all kinds of major and minor tidbits that can be improved upon.

      While Europe's system will be good and use all the latest technology, this is still their first attempt at such a system. The US can use the latest technology also, but in addition draw from their 20 years of experience with a working system. You can alway do thing better the second time around...

    3. Re:Why we need it... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Europ

      Europe

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    4. Re:Why we need it... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Nonsense. Galileo is necessary for economic reasons. Any military reasons are secondary.

      Just imagine all distribution trucks and airplanes under computer control using Galileo as a positioning system. It will be as important as clocks are today. GPS provides no guarantees on accuracy and the US military can disable or decrease the accuracy of the signal any time they want. Not something you want controlling a loaded truck speeding on a highway or an airplane fully loaded with people doing a poinpoint landing.

    5. Re:Why we need it... by zeux · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that there was a link, I just said that Galileo is one step in the direction of the building of an army.

      We didn't have to wait for Iraq to understand that we needed this army...

    6. Re:Why we need it... by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the Spain governement has been overthrown during the last elections

      Actually the incumbent party had a comfortable lead in the polls just before the election. Then they had tha Madrid bombings. What do you think they did ? They freaked out and immediately tried to blame it on the ETA (basque terrorists), without even a shred of evidence.

      As it emerged that the bombs had been planted by Al Qaeda, the Spaniards got pretty pissed with their government and voted them out of office.

      Compare with the US, where a government which actually lied not only to his own people but to the whole damn world has been easily re-elected.

      most think that the UK government will pay in the near future too.

      If elections took place today, Labour would win hands down. You underestimate Tony Blair's strategical masterpiece: the total occupation of the political center by the Labour party, which forced opposition either to the left of the left (LibDems) or to a growingly darker shade of the right. The Conservative party is not credible any more.

      By the way, the conservative party supported the war too.

      Thomas-

    7. Re:Why we need it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Compare with the US, where a government which actually lied not only to his own people but to the whole damn world has been easily re-elected."

      Easily re-elected? It is easy to paint all Americans with your wide brush, but keep in mind that every-so-slightly-under-50% (unfortunately) of us dislike bush just as much as you do.

      "Aside from the 2000 election (which Bush won by just 5 votes in the Electoral College), it was the smallest margin of victory won in the Electoral College since 1916, when Woodrow Wilson beat Charles Evans Hughes by 23 votes, 277 to 254."

    8. Re:Why we need it... by will_die · · Score: 1

      When did Bush lie about Iraq?
      Please name just one item.
      Did he look at the latest information provided by US intelligence and other information provided by other goverments intellences and then take action on what that intellence was saying was happen. Yes.
      Did alot of that information turn out to be wrong. Yes.
      Is that lieing? No.

    9. Re:Why we need it... by jlehtira · · Score: 1
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20 030317-7.html

      He did say he has proof of wmds. I wonder what the proof was. A satellite image of a factory-like building? Well, the proof surely didn't point to "anything specific".

    10. Re:Why we need it... by will_die · · Score: 1

      Except that link leads to a 404 error. I removed the space between 20 and 03 and that found a page.
      However that pages that not have anything you reference. It does have this quote
      " Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."
      So you are saying that he knew that the US and other counties intelligence had not gathered information about the Iraq regime having such weapons or you saying that they had not used such weapons before?

    11. Re:Why we need it... by jlehtira · · Score: 1

      You quoted it. "leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." That means "proves that they have WMDs". If it doesn't prove then there still is doubt. WMDs are "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised". W and D are easy, all weapons destruct. A grenade is totally lethal if it hits anywhere close, so "more lethal" must mean "kills masses of people".

      I'm saying he knew he didn't have proof while he said he did. He put it very cleverly, tho. The quote MIGHT still be interpreted otherwise, but I'm sure nobody did at the time. I don't care that much what his exact phrases were, the point is what he makes us believe. He should not mislead us, on purpose or accidentally.

      If he wasn't deliberately misleading, he was incompetent in judging. "Don't account to evil what can be explained by incompetence", I saw somewhere. Either way, evil or incompetent, he shouldn't be in power.

      And if you're one of the believing americans, why not make the existence of WMDs a matter of faith. I for one cannot overlook real evidence.

    12. Re:Why we need it... by will_die · · Score: 1

      I guess if you can belive that the US and other contries planned a near worldwide consensus, including thoses againt against forcing Iraq to hold to thier aggrements, that they should all agree that Iraq had WMD when they actually did not; then yes President Bush lied.

      Do have a question though. Do you believe the current information that thoses against the war are currentl saying, that Saddam was planning to implement programs in the future and was currently lieing low? If so, the equipment he would need for that has also not been found.

  50. Short Video by pg133 · · Score: 1


    If your interested, there is short video on the BBC web site.

  51. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by inflex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are you a troll in a bad disguise?

    China has more than enough tech to ensure their missiles make their mark. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the US is the only country in the world that has missiles that don't require monkeys to control them.

  52. No Independence Yet by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ``Is this just a pork-barrel project, or something Europe really needs to break the reliance on U.S. space technology?''

    IIRC, the USA allowed the EU to build this system, provided that it would be easy for the USA to disrupt it. This means that Galileo is independent in the same sense as political parties in former East Germany; do anything you want, as long as it's what I want.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:No Independence Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA allowed the EU to build this system

      Oh how very nice of the USA to allow the EU to build this. Im glad that we now have to run everything past a bunch of wankers first. Im doing a building extension in North England soon so I wonder if anyone knows which cunt I ring in Washington to get the work permit?

    2. Re:No Independence Yet by HL · · Score: 0

      If this is true, this really is very interesting. Can you give me some references? I wasn't aware that USA was deciding what EU can or can't spend its money on!

    3. Re:No Independence Yet by jeif1k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      provided that it would be easy for the USA to disrupt it.

      It's not that simple. If the US turns off its GPS system, the Europeans can moan but they don't really have cause to complain. If the US disrupts Galileo without consent from the Europeans, that would be a grave violation of international law and something that can't be papered over easily. The US may have a button to disrupt Galileo now, but their use of it is quite constrained.

    4. Re:No Independence Yet by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      Hmm. My Internet connection is acting up, making searching a pain. The best I've come up with is this quote from Global View June 2004:

      ``A key point of contention was whether the Galileo open signal would interfere with the new GPS military signal and the ability of U.S. military forces to jam civil GNSS signals -- including Galileo -- in a theater of operations.''

      I know story dedicated to the US jamming Galileo is out there, but I can't find it at the moment.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    5. Re:No Independence Yet by k31bang · · Score: 1

      The US may have a button to disrupt Galileo now, but their use of it is quite constrained.


      Yeah, constrained except when bush flys into Europe, then off it goes.

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    6. Re:No Independence Yet by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      USA can't be the schoolyard bully forever. Eventually the smart kids move on to college, and the bully will be found at some shabby burger place.

    7. Re:No Independence Yet by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the USA allowed the EU to build this system

      I beg your pardon? Allowed ??

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  53. More EU Madness (and I live here) by Ed+Almos · · Score: 1

    According to the spokesman one of the uses of the system is "the prevention of natural catastrophes such as flooding or fires". Yet another example of EU politicians promising the Sun and Moon but delivering nothing.

    This is just a few billion Euro down the drain which could be better spent.

    Ed Almos
    Budapest, Hungary

    --
    The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
    1. Re:More EU Madness (and I live here) by johannesg · · Score: 1

      I suppose we could also flush it all down the sinkhole that is the eastwards expansion of the EU...

    2. Re:More EU Madness (and I live here) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of those 2.1 billion, at least 0.7 billion are coming from outside the EU (India, China, Russia). The remaining 1,4 billion are a tiny fraction of annual spendings on agriculture subsidies, and as opposed to those, they actually generate value.

      It is not the size of the investment that matters, it is the efficiency. Can you think of a more efficient way of spending EU money?

    3. Re:More EU Madness (and I live here) by irote · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh shut up you fucking miepes! (or ar you just fideszes) how many billions in structural funds is 'nothing' in your language? and what about the thousands of Hungarians who are now making use of the four freedoms to live and work in London, to name just the city where I live? Jeez...I like Hungary, I'm glad it's joined the EU, I'm proud of the EU, an organisation which has invested billions of euros in raising Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece from relative poverty into rich, dynamic economies. And now the same will happen to Hungary. It's already happened to Slovenia (which is now richer than Greece), and Hungary's economy has been *booming* since it became clear that the country would join the EU. As have the economies of all the other new member states.

      Just think of that: without the EU, can you imagine the same kind of solidarity from the member states on your own? Can you imagine that the UK or Germany or France would have spontaneously decided to invest billions in the development of deprived regions of Ireland or Hungary? No, they only do it because we have this umbrella organisation which imposes certain moral obligations and rights on all its members. It's unique in the history of the world, it is a benefit for everyone living on this continent, and all you can do is whinge about it.

      Jacques Barrot didn't mean 'preventing' floods - his first language isn't English, but I'm sure his English is better than your French. He meant dealing with natural disasters. This doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

      So ebredj fol, almoskam.

    4. Re:More EU Madness (and I live here) by irote · · Score: 1

      Agricultural subsidies account for about half of the EU's budget, unfortunately. Of course, the scale of the subsidies are comparable to what you might find in the US, it's just that the European Commission's budget is far smaller than the US Federal Government's, so as a percentage of total expenditure, the EU's agriculture framework looks inordinately expensive. It's not expensive, though - it's just a waste of time. Agree with you so far. (Crop production is no longer directly subsidised, however: CAP money is increasingly focussed towards rural development - things like improving transport links, providing high-speed internet access in very remote regions, stuff that /. should like). But the structural funds are very different: they really are spent on building up infrastructure. Drive around Ireland or Spain: notice that motorways often have a sign bearing the EU flag: they were co-financed by the EU. Airports, schools, libraries, university research labs - all kinds of things, things that are essential to a modern economy, but which Ireland in 1973 or Spain or Portugual in 1986 could never have afforded on their own. I think this money - the structural funds, the cohesion funds - is *very* well spent,

    5. Re:More EU Madness (and I live here) by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that Greece was never really on the verge of poverty. I was there in 1988 and it wasn't on the verge of poverty. The best thing the EU did was rein in Greece's spending and bring them down to earth - make them good for themselves.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    6. Re:More EU Madness (and I live here) by El+Cabri · · Score: 1

      Better spent like what ? Paying for infrastructures in Hungary that Hungarians cannot pay for themselves ?

  54. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you reread the complaints you may realize that they're not about GPS but about the US' (political) interference with Galileo.

  55. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > ... if they lose confidence and withdraw their money - its the US that goes broke.

    uhh, not really. The only way investors can get their money out is to sell off their investments to someone else. The US won't go broke but the investors certainly could.

    > ... no good will around the world.

    geez, what else is new?

  56. Competition by Aceticon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The best option is multiple systems, that way there is no single entity that can unilaterally, for whatever strategical self-interest, decide to "pull the plug" on another nation's ability to use satelite based location systems.

    So yes, China would be a good one. Also Russia, Western Europe, India, Brasil and whoever else can put a satelite up there - the more the merrier.

    I wouldn't trust Western Europe with the keys for one single system (and i was born and bred in these parts), just as i wouldn't trust any other single entity.

    As for the strategic interest of the US, the best i can say is: though luck - the world is a lot bigger than just Kentuky and americans ain't more or less deserving than anybody else.

    PS: Note that the european decision to go ahead (and spend a couple of billions on it) was most certainly influenced by an increased sense in Europe, over the last few years, that the US will throw their muscle around whenever they want, for whatever self-interest reasons, without listening to anybody else. It's like in high school - some people might fear the bully boy, some people might dislike him, some people might wanna be like him, some might even like him, but hardly anybody trusts him.

  57. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm quite sure there isn't a EU country that has such an enormous deficit as the US has. Face it..the US is living on credit that one day will have to be repaid.

  58. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    I think you need to be examining what percentage of all government expenditure goes towards just servicing (ie, paying off the interest alone) that debt. It's a frightening proportion of all governmental income, and one which won't be falling anytime soon with GW Bush in perpetual tax cutting mode.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  59. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China will probably put a man on the moon sooner than you think. If you have ever heard the ET colonial dreams - they are gonna push for that harder than you think.

    And the US will *never* develop fusion power. The current administration wouldnt want them to, and are probably busy shelving any potential clues. Hydrocarbon based power systems are just to profitable - so the chances of a clean, safe, cheap alternative are virtually nil.

  60. One Iraq war = 100+ Positioning systems by horace · · Score: 1

    Please consider moderating the parent positively. After all clearly every penny spent on Christmas presents would do more good if spent on world peace or basic research.

    China, Russia and India are coughing up nearly half the cost and it is more accurate. I know sailors are quite excited by it. There are lots more things that will be possible. In any case I believe the GPS satellites are expected to die in the foreseeable future.

    It's hardly pork and it will be better. Why the fuss?

    I find it bizarre that one group is saying that there is no reason for Europe to want its own GPS system and another saying that obviously the US is preparing anti satellite missiles. Why aren't people more excited by the possibilities given by a more accurate positioning system. This is news for nerds not media for megalomaniacs.

    1. Re:One Iraq war = 100+ Positioning systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the concern here is justified. Europe has become quite dependent on US-controlled GPS, but to develop their own GPS at a significant cost? What else could this money be spent on?

      In any case I believe the GPS satellites are expected to die in the foreseeable future.

      GPS satellites are replaced as they die out, and the replacements are upgraded versions thus improving the overall GPS system.

    2. Re:One Iraq war = 100+ Positioning systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Significant cost - did you read the title? Do you think Europe has that much less money than the US?

  61. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello? Is anyone paying any attention to what the PRC is building these days? It's getting damn near impossible to find any consumer electronics that aren't made there (kinda like Japan in the '60s and '70s). With western companies (including traitorous US ones) willing to let them have access to ever more sensitive technology do you really think they can't build high tech military gizmos? It may be bulkier and heavier but as the Soviet era space programs showed us it can still be highly effective.

    The country that has the high ground of space will be in the controlling position. I hope this is not lost on the short sighted western countries.

  62. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by pcx · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    We've owned space for nearly half a century now and have the flags to prove it :)

    http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shared/News2001/Moo nL anding/flag.jpg

  63. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China has more than enough tech to ensure their missiles make their mark. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the US is the only country in the world that has missiles that don't require monkeys to control them

    Only enough missles to target a small number of large cities on the US west coast. And their missile targeting was improved in accuracy with the help of the Clinton administration. But they wouldn't make a mistake of launching a nuke at the US like that, we have far more nukes for deterrence.

  64. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    EU goal is to enlarging to East Europe and to incorporate Russia.

    Actually, the proposed enlargement of the EU to include countries such as Ukraine is what's seriously pissing Russia off; they want to create their own trading block.

    At this rate, Russia's block will consist of:-

    Russia, Turkmenistan and half of Ukraine.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  65. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by elfkicker · · Score: 1

    Insightful?! Just plain wrong. While the parent is just as silly, why does fear triumph?

    Creating and testing nuclear weapons has proven far more difficult that making effective rockets. Wait, way am I even beginning to argue this point?

    It's silly shit like this that makes me weep. Damn you red states. Damn you to Rumsfeld. Damn you for convincing the the passionate illiterate.

  66. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by Alioth · · Score: 1

    Also, according to the US's own figures, the UK has slighly lower unemployment than the US.

    Pity about the rest of the EU, though.

  67. Planes _already_ land using GPS... by wcdw · · Score: 2, Informative

    Due to the rollout of WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System), there are a growing number of airports in the country which have GPS approaches. WAAS provides accurate enough GPS signal correction (from ground based stations) to provide full auto-land functionality for so-equipped airliners.

    This is a reality _today_, and requires nothing from the Europeans, or waiting until 2008.

    As a side note, directed more to the lurkers, what no one seems to consider is that there are many navigational systems which pre-date GPS. ILS and Loran signals, for example, are NOT encrypted, and do NOT have selective availability.

    --
    If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    1. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waas is a hack. And the world is bigger than the USA.

    2. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by maird · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally I was talking to a ATP/Instructor friend about GPS approaches on Friday. As I understood what he told me there are no approaches in the US that are approved for GPS guided landing. There are lots for GPS approach to a visual landing. The only zero visibility approaches in the US are, apparently, ILS Cat IIIc equipped runways with suitably certified aircraft. He told me that zero visibility GPS approach and landing is coming but isn't here yet. I'm not sure that this means the use of the GPS system or augmented GPS or even GPS + Galileo.

    3. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by wcdw · · Score: 1

      And that invalidates my earlier statements exactly how?

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    4. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by wcdw · · Score: 1

      I don't know about _zero visibility_ approaches - I've never actually seen one. Every ILS approach chart I've ever seen has specified some level of ceiling and minimum visibility requirements, along with the corresponding requirement that one *see* the runway before landing. (Then again, I don't fly a lot of autoland-equipped aircraft, either. ;)

      However, there *are* WAAS approaches out there. The airport at AOPA headquarters in Frederick, MD was the first to receive a WAAS-certified approach, which has minimums less than 10' different from its ILS. And deployment continues (finally).

      Also note that it can cost more than $1M to install a single ILS, serving only one runway. WAAS can be installed significantly cheaper, and can handle multiple runways - one reason that has so many smaller airports interested.

      One downside is that there is (to the best of my knowledge) only one FAA-certified WAAS-capable receiver, though that will surely change.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    5. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by maird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm currently looking at the Cat III ILS RWY 16R approach chart for Seattle Tacoma. The Straight in ILS 16R (S-ILS 16R) minimums for CAT IIIc (any aircraft category) is N/A (i.e. no runway visual range limit - i.e. zero visibility). The Cat IIIb has a RVR limit of 300 feet. None of the listed Cat III minimums includes a decision height. The following is written on the chart: "CATEGORY III SPECIAL AUTOLAND EVALUATION REQUIRED: "CATEGORY III ILS-SPECIAL AIRCREW & AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED" My understanding is that a Cat IIIc approach and landing is a coupled approach only and approach and landing are permitted in zero visibility. I also checked some Cat III charts for Denver and Salt Lake City. All have no RVR limit or decision height for a Cat IIIc approach. All have the same certification notice. Most of the runways in question have multiple ILS approach charts, several non-cat III plates and one Cat III plate. The GPS approach I looked at, Tacoma GPS/VOR 34L/R for example, has a lowest decision height of 840 feet and RVR of 240 feet. The Tacoma GPS approach I looked is for both 34L and 34R so it has to require a visual final and landing since the reference point for the final approach course is between the two runways. Even with better accuracy than is currently available from GPS an autopilot couldn't fly that to landing.

    6. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by wcdw · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the update. I assumed this was true in some places, but it's always nice to have confirmation.

      Just out of curiosity, is the Tacoma approach in question WAAS-only, or just IFR-GPS?

      I also don't follow the logic about the reference point being between the two runways. If the computer knows where it is, and where it's going, any 'reference point' (which is actually provided by at least 4 sats possibly plus a ground station) is completely arbitrary. And if the autopilot can't (physically) fly it GPS, it can't fly it ILS, either, right?

      I know that typical GPS approaches have worse minimums than comparable ILSs, as the (unaugmented) accuracy is not as good, particularly when it comes to altitude. I'd have to check, but IIRC, WAAS is supposed to be accurate to within 1.5 meters. And believe me, I (and many other students) have dropped a plane out of the sky from higher than that. :)

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    7. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by maird · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, is the Tacoma approach in question WAAS-only, or just IFR-GPS?

      It's an old chart so it is VOR-GPS only.

      I also don't follow the logic about the reference point being between the two runways. If the computer knows where it is, and where it's going, any 'reference point' (which is actually provided by at least 4 sats possibly plus a ground station) is completely arbitrary. And if the autopilot can't (physically) fly it GPS, it can't fly it ILS, either, right?

      Yes and no I guess. The published procedure is what the crew/aircraft is supposed to follow. For the VOR-GPS plate I looked at the GPS approach is a GPS overlay of the VOR approach. The approach is a runway heading to the VOR but the VOR is not on either runway, it's between the two (nearer the right from what I can tell). So, the published procedure is to fly down to that VOR on the runway heading but to the right of the left runway or to the left of the right runway. Then, when the field is in sight, side step to the correct centreline and perform a visual landing. That appears to make it largely a locating procedure because you may as well line up on the correct runway as soon as you are able (gets you stabilised as early as possible). There's no guided profile (glideslope) so the approach is officially non-precision.

      I once had the good fortune to get a few hours on a 747-400 Level D simulator (a BA 747 training captain needed help with his laptop). I got to watch two first officers doing a dry run of the check-ride they were doing the next day. It was a wild set of coincidences they were given but I got to see them both do a non-precision NDB approach into Gatwick. The ceiling was 600 feet AGL. The pilot flying was calling the distance to run every mile using the navigation display and the pilot not-flying would call the altitude for an on profile approach. It was obvious to me from the ND that the aircraft could have handled the approach better using the INS and VOR augmentation than either pilot (particularly one of them) was able to by hand flying using the ND but regulation and policy prohibited it. The aircraft is only pre-programmed with the published procedures (plus it can probably handle straight in using the ILS without needing a procedure - select the ILS frequency, select the auto-pilot in approach mode and sit back). So, if you want to use the auto-pilot for an approach and landing your only options (for the types I've had any kind of access to) are to hand program the approach waypoints (too slow and prone to error plus, at least the 747-400, won't auto-flare) or to select a published procedure from the flight computer. If the only published GPS procedure is a non-precision approach (no glideslope) or has no guidance onto the runway (the VOR-GPS at Tacoma for example) then regulations (and probably company policy and auto-pilot implementation) will prevent you from using it as a zero visibility approach. FWIW, company policies often enforce stricter limits than those enforced by the FAA. Incidentally, cool 747-400 software bug... The BA pilot that let me fly the sim told me he once did a re-positioning flight to move a 744 from Gatwick to Heathrow (less than 10 minutes flying time). He tried to tune the Heathrow ILS frequency on the radio only to discover you couldn't select an ILS within 10 minutes of a take-off. He assured me it's been fixed.

      I know that typical GPS approaches have worse minimums than comparable ILSs, as the (unaugmented) accuracy is not as good, particularly when it comes to altitude. I'd have to check, but IIRC, WAAS is supposed to be accurate to within 1.5 meters. And believe me, I (and many other students) have dropped a plane out of the sky from higher than that. :)

      I did glider training once. Flying a three degree glideslope is too risky so you do ten degrees or something equally wild. It's about the best roller coaster I've ever ridden. My instructor (the friend I've been paraphrasing) used to shout at me f

    8. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by tyler_larson · · Score: 1
      Due to the rollout of WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System), there are a growing number of airports in the country which have GPS approaches.

      Yeah, I used to think that our system was good enough. Then one of those presidential campaigns came to town.

      See, I have a Garmin 430 in my airplane. I went for a flight after the presidential hopeful left town. The RAIM warning popped up shortly after turning the reciver on (making it unsafe--and illegal--to execute any approaches). See, seems that the US Secret Service was afraid that a terrorist would try to drop a nucular bomb on one of the candidates, and turned off GPS reception for our... um... state. And apparently, even though the state was no longer a target, they just hadn't gotten around to turning the GPS back on.

      I talked to some other pilots, and apparently this is standard procedure--and has been since GPS first went active.

      I was really hoping that the European system would put an end to this idiocy. Damn.

      --
      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
      RFC 1925
    9. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by wcdw · · Score: 1

      Sim time in a 747 would be a terrific Christmas present, if anyone cares. And the bug story is great. Not so great in a real aircraft, discovered the hard way, though.

      Gliders, eh? I've been tempted, but I dunno. There have been those occasions when I *HAD* to go around. (And once at PDK when I *REALLY*, *REALLY* had to go around. They're probably still talking about that attempt in the tower, as many years as its been.) Motor gliders, maybe, although I think helicopters have more apeal right now.

      Anyway, yes, HITS (Highway In The Sky) technology - if it ever gets here - will make flying precision approaches as easy (or easier) than playing a video game. (Well, other than gusts, wind shear, icing, basic aerodynamics, yada yada....) The heads-up approach has a lot of unexplored potential - witness the car which uses infrared to overlay a heads-up display of what's around the corner.

      Also, random last minute thought -- don't most airliners with autoland capability also have radar altimeters?

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    10. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by wcdw · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware of that, but in today's world of rampant stupidity, it doesn't surprise me a bit.

      Never mind that the airport at which they landed likely had an ILS beacon, which never stopped broadcasting the whole time they were there. Or that inertial navigational systems are pretty off-the-shelf technology, and even adding terrain-mapping is not much more difficult.

      Or, if it comes to that (and I expect the Secret Service at my door shortly after posting this one), homing a missle in on e.g. Air Force One's transponder, radio transmissions, et alia.

      Heck, _because_ of the way they treat certain aircraft, it is _trivially_ easy to pick those planes out of the crowd whilst still in the air - the worst place for a disaster to happen.

      At any rate, I also echo your sentiments about the Europeans caving in on a completely independent system.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    11. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by maird · · Score: 1

      Radio altimeters, yes. The 747-400 will talk to you. If you want it to it will call out the reference speeds on take-off and useful altitudes on approach. It also tells you when it isn't happy with your flying! Listening to a 747 barking "GLIDE-SLOPE, GLIDE-SLOPE" then a minute later "TERRAIN, TERRAIN, PULL-UP" because it is unhappy with the radio altimeter reading makes for really sweaty palms.

      Aircraft with engine out (including gliders) always have right of way (I think that non-steerable aircraft, e.g. balloons, maybe have a higher right of way). I once had to call another aircraft on approach to get them out of my way when I was engine out and my instructor had to go on the radio to insist that they comply with the regulation they obviously didn't know. Helicopters look like fun but are really expensive.

    12. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by maird · · Score: 1

      Spoke to my CFII/ATP friend. WAAS (augmented GPS) approaches are appearing regularly. While they are precision approaches none of them are zero visibility qualified. They are about 10m vertical less accurate than equivalent ILS approaches (that's a 20 foot minimum threshold crossing versus 50 for an ILS) and there is a consequential limitation on glideslope angle that makes zero visibility landings impractical (steeper approach, flare up to 30' too high or too low). The ones we looked at were all slightly worse minimums than an equivalent ILS approach (not Cat III), for the reason above presumably. I can only remember the RVR was 1.5 miles but I can't remember the DH, I think it was 500'. I guess this doesn't prevent them from being used for auto-land however (you can always hand fly once you can see the runway). My friend tells me that the FAA is actively giving vibes that the status of WAAS GPS approaches are not going to be improved upon (period). I get the impression that the FAA doesn't trust GPS unless you can see the things you might hit.

    13. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by wcdw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, unfortunately it wasn't a right-of-way issue that caused at least one of the go arounds; just a lousy approach. And a personal heads-up that 6 hours in a unpressurized aircraft (TX-GA in a 182R) has more affect than I would have believed. A wake up call that, fortunately did NOT involve hitting the side runway lights, but it was a close run thing there for a while. (And you're correct that e.g. ballons have the ultimate right-of-way, being non-steerable.)

      Helicopters - VERY expensive. And require reflexes which are effectively backwards from my motorcycle-riding ones (e.g. left-handed throttle). They look like a lot of fun, though, and I've enjoyed the couple trips I've taken as a passenger.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    14. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by wcdw · · Score: 1

      I know there is still an on-going political battle over WAAS, LAAS and the like. It seems like the FAA has opposed WAAS for some time, and yet it is finally starting to spread. (Then again, what other agency can lay claim to still running tube-based computers?)

      It will be especially interesting once we see approved implementations of the HITS heads-up technology, which I assume is all GPS-based - VORs aren't terribly useful for 3D spacial plotting.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    15. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by maird · · Score: 1

      The Boeing computers auto-tune multiple VOR receivers (actually uses DME as I understand it) to correct INS drift. If you are receiving from two VORs then you can plot an arc of possible positions, three and you can plot a point in space. Then it's only a matter of accuracy in the system. If you look at the Boeing ND with stations displayed then the auto-tuned VORs are highlighted in blue.

    16. Re:Planes _already_ land using GPS... by wcdw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, multiple VORs (with DME) would allow pretty accurate positioning, in most parts of the country and/or at high enough altitude. I've never seen such a receiver; sounds like a cool toy.

      Although I'm not sure that 'arc' really describes the situation in a three-dimensional scenario. And I'm not sure you can locate more than 'the spot on the ground over which you currently are' (i.e. altitude) without a 4th source (at least without integrating the INS tracking data), although I'm too lazy to work it out, and could be wrong.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
  68. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by adeydas · · Score: 1

    exactly. ever heard of a 'dirty bomb'. anybody who possess requisite amounts of nuclear materials can make a dirty bomb. and any lunatic who wants to die can destroy the white houses bursting it 6 block away...

  69. Re:Again-- please grow up and realize that there a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most countries don't have "friends". Only, long term interests.

    It's just the way things work.

  70. Smart Move by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

    With USA being driven into the ground, The euro is quickly replacing the dollar as the stable money. With more money flowing to Europe, they will be able to afford large ticket items. This launch will give them a shot in the arm that they need to establish their rockets and truely create a space industry.

    Our (US) system has the fault that the DOD can turn it off whenever they see fit. In particualar, one of the problems that we want to go to "free skies". That is the airplanes would be free to decide how and where to travel guided by GPS. Great concept, but one huge flaw. The DOD can turn off GPS whenever they see fit. So imagine the sky filled with planes and then the GPS goes off. Ooops. Europe's system is probably the one to go to.

    This bad for us dominence, but great for business, Europe, and the World as a whole.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Smart Move by Nexum · · Score: 4, Informative

      Europe (Arianespace) already lifts more commercial payloads into space than all other organisations in the world put together.

      --

      This sig has been deprecated.
    2. Re:Smart Move by spankus · · Score: 1

      I'm so bloody tired of this argument. Do you really believe the US military will turn off GPS? Can you imagine the incredible press field day if an aircraft, ship, or hell even a car had some sort of problem?

      Totally implausible when you look at the consequences.

    3. Re:Smart Move by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Actually, the recent weakness in the US dollar is a huge problem for Europe, and will likely drive Europe back into recession. As the Euro strengthens vis a vis the dollar, European goods become more expensive in the US market and elsewhere in the world. Given the EU's dependence (particularly Germany's) on exports, it's not surprising that the European finance ministers are doing more than a bit of complaining about the weakness of the dollar.

    4. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that other countries are tired of American instabilities and foolishness. While EU may not like being the leader, other nations are trusting them more than America.

    5. Re:Smart Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is still the greatest economical power in the world (but watch China).

      If the US cannot afford another big ticket, it's due to the number of big tickets they allowed themselves in recent years, leading to the phenomenal debt they are now trying to export by an undervalued $.

  71. What a joke by N8F8 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Want a great army? Stary by not forcing citizens to join. Then give them a decent budget. Right now the combined EU can't even float a navy. No functional nuclear subs and few functional carriers.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:What a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was the last time a big navy mattered? I mean, when you're not out to "defend yourself" against a country on the other side of the world?

      EU conscription is slowly disappearing country by country. At the moment, it looks like border states will generally keep it (because they are the ones who have a use for large numbers of soldiers), while the focus of the big central states is shifting towards Special Forces and Air Force - i.e. away from conscription.

    2. Re:What a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell you on about?? Most of the UK's nuke power is on nuke subs, Get on the clue train :/

    3. Re:What a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the inferiority of British submarine power is clearly shown by the face the Americans keep trying to buy their tech. :-)

    4. Re:What a joke by boule75 · · Score: 1

      There are few carriers (one recent French and 2-4 old British one?).
      For the subs, there are more, including top-level nuclear French subs both for conventionnal attack and information gathering (6, "Rubis" class) and for nuclear dissuasion (the third of the new generation "SNLE" has just been launched (http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3224,36 -388624,0.html

      Besides, I think Europe should not ruin itself to follow the US weapon madness because this led the CSSR to go bankrupt and the USA are currently ruinning themselves with their so-costly military. But we Europeans should really keep our eyes on Russian madmen and on Chinese "free markets" dictators. Those are our next militaristic ennemies.
      Hopefully, the US people won't let its rullers attack Europe. And terrorism should be fought mostly with intelligence means backed by top level troops as in Afghanistan.

      --
      I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
    5. Re:What a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most European Countries do not maintain conscripted armies anymore - France were the most recent to end the practice I believe.
      And you're wrong - the combined defence budgets of the EU Countries could indeed create a HUGE army/navy/airforce, although of course, currently, they are not combined.

      As for no functional nuclear subs....were you pissed when you wrote that? The UK has plenty - and several new ones on the way. Carriers too...I don't really want to start bashing the US military too much - but during the first escapade in the Gulf, the US navy ended up relying on UK carriers for several communications requirements.
      One thing I think the US has learnt recently is - there is no correlation between a large military and an effective one.

      Come on man...learn a bit about Europe before joining in the conversation

    6. Re:What a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also there is a not insignificant fleet of British nuclear subs with ICBMs onboard, also the Brits also have several carriers (and are building more).

  72. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by rjshields · · Score: 1

    Again-- please grow up and realize that there are hostiles in the world, and it is a constant struggle to stay ahead.

    Look mate, your country may be a beacon of hope and glory from where you're standing, but for those on the outside that ain't exactly the case. Realise that.

    --
    In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
  73. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by d-rock · · Score: 1

    Just FYI, most nuke warheads are designed to detonate at low altitude, to increase the pressure damage due to an increase of the shock wave doubling on itself. See:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/mapabla st.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon
    Not to say that water wouldn't still dampen some of the overpressure wave and radiation, but we're not talking about a Bikini Atoll-type explosion.
    Derek

    --
    Don't Panic...
  74. this is very important by Exter-C · · Score: 1

    This is an important development in the world political scene. At the end of the day if there was another long term issue between the europeans and the americans the americans could really screw with people by giving them the wrong coordinates etc. Having a dual system benefits more than just the europeans as more people can use it and better satelite coverage if the systems are compatibile

  75. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dirty bombs are a non existant threat. The US DoE among others has done research into their use, and has shown that for them to be more dangourse then a convential bomb people would have to live in the same area for 1 year, with no clean up taking place.

    The information that our goverments are giving us on dirty bombs is all part of their campain of fear.

  76. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd bet money that the GP is from blue, or voted that way.

  77. then apparently you don't know much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The French are involved in multiple bloody conflicts right now. They just don't face the wrath of an anti-American media.

    Take Ivory Coast for example. That shit ain't pretty.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/11/09/ivory .m beki/
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireSto ry?id=2 32035

    1. Re:then apparently you don't know much... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Ivory coast is a territory similiar to Puerto Rico for USA. This would be akin to Puerto Rico having an uprising. What would the USA do? we would send troops to calm things down.

      Iraq is a very different matter. While we provided military and WMD during the 80's, it is not a territory of ours. Or at least was not until very recently.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:then apparently you don't know much... by boule75 · · Score: 1

      French troops have been in Ivory coast for a long time because of a defense agreement. More troops were sent in 2002 folowing a request of the Ivorian government, which they saved from a rebelion (so goes the official story and France was thanked by Gbagbo for that). Some time later, there was an unanimous agreement in the UN to send African peacekeepers _provided_ they would be helped by the French should the situation worsen.

      The latest sad events clearly showed that France's aim was not to occupy the country or throw Mr. Gbagbo out, because this could have be done in minutes -as what was done with the mercenaries-run Ivorian Air Force- but the Ivorian government was left in place as you know.

      I am not so sure this specific post is off-topic, eventhough the USA seem to play fair with France in this crisis.

      Does anyone know if the GPS signal was lost in Ivory Coast lately ? If French soldiers had relied on the tenfold more precise Gallileo signal, would they have avoided to wander near the presidential palace and would they have found immediately the Ivoire Hotel they were looking for (and that they finaly found ?).

      --
      I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
  78. EU vs. US unemployment by orzetto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, I'm not a statistician, but for what I have heard the methods of calculation of unemployment in continental EU are different from US and UK.

    Among other things, I'm quite certain that detainees are not considered unemployed in the US (which have by far the largest detainee population in the western world), but they are in continental Europe. I heard also that people are considered unemployed as long as they collect welfare in the US, which lasts for some time (3 years maybe?), after which one is not officially counted as "unemployed", but I'm not sure of this one.

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    1. Re:EU vs. US unemployment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ... I'm quite certain that detainees are not considered unemployed in the US

      I don't know either. But, if by "detainees" you mean the prison population then you're lucky if they're not counted. By and large the prison population is "employed" and including them would decrease the unemployment rate. Their earnings are low (minimum wage or sometimes less) and they usually have to pay taxes (and often things like room, board, and sometimes restitution). By law, most prisoner work programs are prohibited from competing with private industry.

      Here's just one program: http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/sui/pie.htm

      Other states have their own versions.

    2. Re:EU vs. US unemployment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >that people are considered unemployed as long as they collect welfare

      Given the majority of Western European nations are one step away from being pure Socialist governments, I would say their unemployment rates should be considered outrageous..EVERYONE seems to feel they have a right to leech off the government tit.

    3. Re:EU vs. US unemployment by will_die · · Score: 1

      You will usally see two numbers in the US, number of unemployed and number collecting unemployment.
      Number of unemployed being all thoses without a job, this includes thoses that left a job but had not yet found a new job for any amount of time. However before and after certain age you are no longer considered a member of the working pool so you are not counted.
      Number of thoses collecting unemployment while an interesting number is generally worthless,except as an indication of thoses new people unemployed. IIRC federal unemployment is only good for a set amount of months, with some states provinding more welfare.
      As for prisoners that gets really hard. As a general rule they are not counted, if they are in jail(considered out of the working pool) however if they were fired before being convicted they would be considered unemployed. Also some states allow prisoners to collect unemployment compensation so they get counted in thoses numbers.

  79. galileo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think thats its funny to see the US wetting itself reaslising that they arent the only ones who can build modern accurate technologies and that they are losing their monopoly

  80. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by CMBurns · · Score: 1

    > Only enough missles to target a small number of
    > large cities on the US west coast.

    So? It doesn't really matter if a nation can destroy earth a bazillion times or just once, so the 10000something missiles the US have don't really matter, too.

    Imagine Washington, New York and LA being hit by nuclear missiles. True, most of US territory would remain unaffected, but the effect would still be devastating.

    C.M.Burns

  81. This whole thread is sad... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    This is not aimed at you personally, this is just another instance of how the entire human race wastes so much because of paranoid squabaling and greed. We are all suffering the "stranger danger" syndrome and want someone or something to protect us while we get on with life. I belive this will be civilisations downfall since we won't overcome our instincts before we eat ourselves (and most other species bigger than a roach) out of house and home. I don't see anyway past our warlord instincts destroying us in the near future, not because alternatives don't exist but because we have had these instincts since before we became "human". It is not that I want to belive this or think it is inevitable(add favourite doomsday story here) but rather that is what history, human behaviour and current ecological/social events indicate. The best minds on the planet paint this picture and some religions relish the idea.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  82. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  83. Politics vs. RIAA/MPAA by beh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why should that piss you off? As a citizen of the US, I absolutely DO NOT want a third party to be able to accurately aim a missile at the White House, the Capitol, or a nuclear power plant. These are military assets, not GPL code for the benefit of mankind (the universal GPS was a side benefit, not the purpose).

    Isn't this a bit like what RIAA wants when they are seeking to destroy P2P file sharing?

    P2P file sharing has legitimate uses (sharing of non-copyrighted material) and illegal ones (sharing of copyrighted content). The RIAA wants P2P (basically) completely forbidden, because of illegal usage.

    Galileo has legitimate uses (to aid navigation of civil planes, etc.) and uses that the US doesn't want to see (potentially guiding enemy missiles).
    And now the US wants to indiscriminately block the Galileo signal in a large part of the world, simply because of the potential that it might be abused, but at the same time locking out ALL perfectly legitimate usage.

    I see a lot of parallels here - and it's kind of interesting that tons of RIAA bashing slashdotters would now take over the same position that the RIAA does in the case of Galileo...

    1. Re:Politics vs. RIAA/MPAA by dspacemonkey · · Score: 1

      Quite.

      One of the big things about using GPS/Galileo in aerospace applications is that it is not redundant enough. The CAA/JAA/FAA is truly anal about such things. Two completely independent satellite navigation systems = certification without having to bugger about with other (more expensive) radio navigation aids.

      As an aside,I believe until fairly recently it was standard practice to switch GPS off the anniversary of it's 'live' date each year. Purely a way of saying 'fuck you, we own it.' I find that fairly amusing.

  84. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

    Dirty bombs aren't any more lethal than a regular bomb with the same amount of explosives. The "dirty" part only causes fear, not death. This means it is an ideal terrorist weapon, of course, and the best countermeasure against one is education.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  85. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by tomcrick · · Score: 1

    Mmmm, not the ol' dirty bomb myth again...

  86. Grow up, China is not going to attack anybody by dggonz · · Score: 1

    As they will be the first economy power in the world in less than 20 years, they are already the sixth, and they aim to be the first. And the United States can't do anything to avoid this from being true.

    Besides, China is probably the world's most powerful military country in the world even if they don't go out of their frontiers, the thing is that they can't battle the entire world. But they could challenge EEUU without any doubt.

    BTW if i don't remmember bad, China is also participating in Galileo.

    1. Re:Grow up, China is not going to attack anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah the chinese military is one of the most puny in the world, as it turns out.

      While it is true that China is modernizing its forces and increasing defense spending, the prospective improvements in overall military capability need to be set against the very low-technology starting point of China's armed forces.

      Millitary

      And for the record, they're a third world country economically.

    2. Re:Grow up, China is not going to attack anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both economies will have a major problem when China does the land grab for Tiawan. They have been buying US bonds to make sure they get their way and they now own enough and all they have to do now is threaten to sell them at $.20 on the dollar and the US debt drops but is locked out of any more debt for decades.

    3. Re:Grow up, China is not going to attack anybody by dggonz · · Score: 1

      take a look at this: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm? story_id=2668015

      I'm not saying it! it is the economist one of the most important economical news papers in the world.

      http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-t op-ten-powerful-countries-map.html

      That the peope in a country live in thrid world conditions does not mean that the country is not powerful economically, and China is the clear example. I'm talking about GDP in global terms, not GDP per capita.

      As examples of what is happening in the world: do you know why the price of steel has been continually getting higher and higher in the past two years? china is demanding more and more steel, if a country demands so much steel it means that it's industry is producing a huge deal of stuff.

      Do you know why the most biggest companies in the world are building factories in China? one of the reasons is because the manpower is cheap, but the main reason is that their citizens are a huge market yet to be exploited.

      More information: China's exports grow 9% each year. EEUU in 2003 had a deficit of 130000 million dollars against China.

      G8 is looking to let China enter. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3797943.stm

      As for the military power: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004617.a sp It's not the biggest but is in second place in power.

    4. Re:Grow up, China is not going to attack anybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay put down the economist, take a deep breath, and look around. The one, only, single reason that companies outsource to India, China, or any other third world country is because they are CHEAP. Let me repeat that. CHEAP. Companies are commercial entities, and culture doesn't come into it. The idiots slavering over the "Chinese market" should talk to a Chinese person some time. The ones that have made it out don't EVER want to go back in. And yes, I speak Mandarin Chinese. Sure there are a billion people there, but thats not much good when they aren't making enough money on average to buy new clothes, never mind a sony playstation. That, my friend, is an economy that is hammered.

      And if you bothered reading that fine article I linked to, just scroll to the bottom of it, where there is a cool analysis of the Chinese prospects if they invade Taiwan. Logically and objectively, they would LOSE. That's right, even without US aid, Taiwan would hand them their asses. And Taiwan ain't no Israel, baby.

      I really don't get what all the excitement is over China. India has nearly as many people, and no one is whimpering about them becoming a world power anytime soon. The EU has about half the population of China (thats right, 1 EU citizen for every 2 or 3 Chinese serfs), and they are better educated, fed, and have a better infrastructure and industrial capacity than China ever will. In a nutshell, the only thing the Chinese have going for them are some damn fine women. And you can take that to the bank.

  87. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Why should that piss you off? As a citizen of the US, I absolutely DO NOT want a third party to be able to accurately aim a missile at the White House, the Capitol, or a nuclear power plant. These are military assets, not GPL code for the benefit of mankind (the universal GPS was a side benefit, not the purpose).

    Fine, well you can have that luxury when you give Europe something in return - eg a GPS blackspot over some of our important buildings - thats fair right?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  88. Dum Dee Dum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dum dum. J00 are teh no7 sm4rt...
    France
    UK
    Ya dumb fuck. lol.

  89. Tracking... by pmfp · · Score: 1

    Is it just me who is concerned about tracking of individuals or our vehicles? I for one do not trust European governments. (or the Chinese and Russians working with them)

    Anybody know the possibilities for that?

    --

    "So unmerciful is life, that everything afterwards is too late."
    1. Re:Tracking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we have to trust your government???

      You are an ***hole, narrowminded f*cker from the 50-ies...US gov. is bad, really really bad.

      And we will go it alone (after american example) if US won't cooperate.

      Go put a sock in it stupid.

    2. Re:Tracking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me who is concerned about tracking of individuals or our vehicles?

      You think any foreign country is more interested than your own government in where you do your shopping?

      I for one do not trust European governments. (or the Chinese and Russians working with them)

      Well guess what, only a small portion of the world trusts the good old US of A.

    3. Re:Tracking... by thisgooroo · · Score: 1

      but you trust yours? enough said

  90. commercial issues, what else...? by beh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What pisses me off is the US's statement that they'll locally block the European system in places they don't want potential "enemies" (read, China), having accurate location tracking.

    I wonder how the US would react if, say, China started blocking GPS from certain places to hold back it's enemies. Tibet for example.


    Interestingly enough, most of what I have heard of the US blocking plans sounds like they want to block the Galileo signal around China.

    To me, this looks like primarily commercial interests, so that they can sell GPS better in that market. If it was to eliminate the possibility of someone to attack the US guided through Galileos positioning, they would need to block the Galileo signal IN THE US (e.g. in the TARGET area, not in the SOURCE area!).

  91. Galileo broken down? by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I really hope these 'agreements' havnt screwed the system up so its totally useless, as far as im concerned Europe needs the exact same benifits that the US gets in any deals, the only things that really should be agreed on are frequencies/positions so that both systems can work properly and blackspots on key US targets in return for blackspots on European targets. Apart from that, the US have to grow up and accept that theres going to be a better system out there that they don't have the keys to, and if they want any say in it then they'll have to ask nicely. I think this is a good project - Europe doesnt have any problems with the US and we'd like to keep it that way but we have to be independent too, im sure the US can understand that concept.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Galileo broken down? by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      Here's one to think about...

      What's the point of a "black hole" in the GPS system?

      How big is this "black hole" going to be?

      Inertial navigation has improved to the point that a well-designed missile could actually have a GPS map of where the black hole starts, calibrate its position in the inertial nav system immediately before hitting the black hole, and still be accurate to a target within the black hole within a few hundred feet, assuming the black hole wasn't too big. (Five hundred miles might be considered "too big.")

      Five-hundred-mile "holes" in the GPS coverage around important targets -- and you just KNOW that when the government gets involved, ths stupidest things turn into "important targets" * -- would reduce the usability of GPS to near-zero. Heck, there wouldn't be any GPS coverage east of the Mississippi anywhere in North America, except maybe on the eastern shores of Hudson Bay.

      It would be pointless to do such a thing, because technology is good enough that there are plenty of ways around it, and it would cause a lot more grief for innocent users of the system than it would save. If it really came down to it, methinks the US and EU would be better off shooting down each other's satellites.

      * American pilots, you know what I'm talking about here. Permanent "T"FRs over Disney World? Little TFRs popping up out of nowhere any time there's a gathering of more than a couple thousand people? Imagine these turning into giant "black holes" in the GPS coverage.

    2. Re:Galileo broken down? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      True but not really the point - the US must already have a way of dealing with this (otherwise what are they crying about?) so Galileo can just do the same sort of thing - whatever that is, its just controlled by someone else and the US government has to accept that. Actually im not even sure it would be possible to black out a totally acurate area? only the GPS unit knows where it is so how do the satellites select specific areas when their radio foot-print covers a much larger area?

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  92. Peace between nations... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    ... can be achived through force (eg:Japan as per another post) but history shows it is temporary. World peace can only come from taking the side of non-violence. So although I think Donald would be better suited to a career in demolition. Why would it put me at odds with a whole geographical entity? All of us fall for the "silly shit" regularly, it's our tribal nature to do so.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  93. Re:Grow up, China is not going to attack Taiwan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're the most powerful economy in the world! With the most powerful military. Look out!

  94. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad the photo was FAKED.

  95. Fly Quantas, by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Rainman recommends it.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  96. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As a citizen of the US, I absolutely DO NOT want a third party to be able to accurately aim a missile at the White House

    As a US citizens, there are days that I long for that. However, it would make a martyr of Bush, and I would rather see him in prison or recorded in the history book accuratly as the man who destroyed America.

  97. Re:Again-- please grow up and realize that there a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Most countries don't have "friends". Only, long term interests.

    While I agree mostly with you, I would have to say that Britain and Canada are our friends. As to everybody else, well, we really are pissing off the world. Reagan did the same, but then he worked on creating friendship after the dispute. Good example, is that after we invaded Iraq, any mature individual would have encouraged others to come in and help rebuild Iraq. Instead, we acted like a bully that had just conqueror a little weak girl. Bush II is killing us faster than he is killing Iraqis and most certainly faster than any Al Qaeida

  98. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No, that photo was NOT faked. WMD in iraq are faked. News on Foxnews is faked. Anything positive on Iraq is mostly faked. Anything on Al qaedi is faked.
    But the moon shot was real. From a time, when americans were honest. Actually, in light of Tricky Dick, well more honest.

  99. Glad to See Europeans are Morons Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Costing 2.1 billion euros and creating 150,000 jobs.

    Nicely completed sentence there, buttfuck.

    1. Re:Glad to See Europeans are Morons Too by Maow · · Score: 0
      Costing 2.1 billion euros and creating 150,000 jobs.

      Nicely completed sentence there, buttfuck.

      Nice buttfuck there, coward.

  100. NO,Ivory Cost is Independant. Puerto Rico is Not by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

    Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States of America. All Puerto Ricans are United States Citizens. Ivory Coast is an Independant Sovereign country. Ivorians are not French Citizens. It is not part of France... although some imperialists might like to think so.

    So, no. Your analogy is invalid.

  101. Die by wire by reality-bytes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thats not to mention the one that decided not to give climb-power on demand and went into the trees (neatly blamed on the pilot but now back under investigation).

    And the other ScareBus that decided it was best to take a nose-dive toward a shopping centre against the pilots best wishes. Luckily the computers in that one relented probably with an "Only kidding" message splashed across the EFIS display.

    Oh, and don't forget that the Die-by-wire systems are there to protect you from the pilot doing anything stupid like applying too much rudder deflection and shearing the tail-off.......oh, wait, New-york, 14th Nov 2001.

    I'll go with your line of seats tho.

    Martin-Baker; getting you out of the sh*t since 1942.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
    1. Re:Die by wire by boule75 · · Score: 1

      If I remeber correctly, this New-york, 14th Nov 2001 crash occured with an Airbus A310 which, like the A300, is NOT equipped with a fly-by-wire mechanism.

      Apart from Concorde which had a kind of computer-controlled command set, electronic plane control was first introduced on commercial aircraft with the Airbus A320.

      I am no specialist there.

      --
      I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
    2. Re:Die by wire by maird · · Score: 1

      Thats not to mention the one that decided not to give climb-power on demand and went into the trees (neatly blamed on the pilot but now back under investigation).

      It's my understanding that turbines can't give power on demand, they have a spool up time so you have to pre-empt demand. I believe this was the "pilot error" attributed in that incident. I remember reading a cool report I think about Mannhein. The flight data recorder showed that as control surfaces were torn off the aircraft the computers used remaining control surfaces to attempt to control attitude.I believe the aircraft landed upright and all souls on-board were evacuated safely.

      If you are ever aft of the wing on a landing 747 (preferably in the cabin) watch the movable surfaces on the wing during the approach you will see that the ailerons are deployed as flaps and the spolers are used as ailerons. It's pretty fly-by-wire too.

      OTOH, I have a friend who is a recently retired 747-400 captain. He told me he wouldn't fly an Airbus because it has no wing spar. I also remember an anecdote about an Air France 727 pilot that refused to train on the side-stick equipped A-320 because he "didn't play computer games".

    3. Re:Die by wire by reality-bytes · · Score: 1

      When referring to 'power on demand', the usual sequence would go:

      *Pilot selects TOGA or full-throttle.

      *Engines respond and spool up.

      The greatest likelyhood is that at that airshow:

      *Pilot selects full-throttle.

      *Engines respond 6-8 seconds later (at the tree-line).


      The FDR and CVR data was apparently doctored and is being re-investigated by lawyers for the Pilot and the Swiss Internation Police Institute.

      Part of the Swiss report provides forensic evidence indicating the recorders at the trial were not the recorders in the Aircraft.

      --
      Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
  102. American's and Russian's Joint Response by __aaijsn7246 · · Score: 1

    In a joint statement yesterday, http://www.igeb.gov/2004-US-Russia-statement.pdf, the United States and Russian Federation announced "their commitment...to continue to provide the GPS and GLONASS civil signals appropriate for commercial, scientific and safety of life use on a continuous, worldwide basis, free of direct user fees."

    Sounds as though they want to quench any arguement Europe may have in regards to the reinstatement of Selective Availability (although we must remember that SA was not reactivated even after/during the September 11th attacks). Not like this will make any difference though.. the EU has its heart set on implementing its own satellite navigation system - I for one will welcome the increased accuracy this will bring, especially in tight city streets where it is currently hard/impossible to get a good satellite lock("shooting the bird"). OTOH, at least it isn't American taxpayers footing the bill this time! :) Redundancy is good in any system.

    I wonder when receivers will be on the market which lock onto GPS & Galileo? Perhaps firmware upgrades could suffice on newer models?

  103. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by villo · · Score: 1
    Actually, the proposed enlargement of the EU to include countries such as Ukraine is what's seriously pissing Russia off; they want to create their own trading block.

    If French and Germans can living togheter in EU, Ukrainian and Russians can too.

    If French and Germans can trade togheter in EU, Ukrainian and Russians can too.

    Just a little hint for you: http://europa.eu.int/abc/history/index_en.htm
    Another hint for you: http://europa.eu.int/index_en.htm
    I think a country like this can not depend on another country for all defense related aspects. Positioning system is only one of this.

    At this rate, Russia's block will consist of:-
    Russia, Turkmenistan and half of Ukraine.

    Yes, you're right: at this rate.
    Almost all old Warsaw Pact countries are in EU block.
    At this rate.

    Russia have raw materials, EU have techologies and finance...

    --
    Ciao da Villo - GPG public key available
  104. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by javiercero · · Score: 1

    Ironically enough most of the chief engineers/scientist for that achievement were not Americans but Germans. As soon as they started dying off the US has not gone back to put more "flags." :)

  105. Re:NO,Ivory Cost is Independant. Puerto Rico is No by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    In very recent time, Ivory Coast was a French colony. France is still in the process of withdrawing from being its subjugator and allowing a stable government to exist there (think panama).

    Puerto Rico is a territory of US (as I said). But the citizens are absolutely NOT american citizens. They are puerto ricans. In fact, they have voted several times to not be a state of the USA. They are protected by america, but they do not have the ability to vote. Nor are they taxed as we are.

    So yes, the analogy is valid

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  106. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by Daniel+Boisvert · · Score: 1

    This is an interesting argument. The US national debt is a nifty conundrum, largely because a good deal of it is owed to internal entities (eg, Social Security), and because most of the rest of it is secured to the land making up the US, or so I've read.

    What happens if the US defaults?

    Any attempt to claim the collateral (the physical landmass making up the US) would be treated as an act of war. Going to war with the US is a bad idea, doubly-so on its own soil. The natural response would be trade penalties of all kinds, but the US is also one of the few nations on earth that is large enough and has sufficient natural resources to ride that out (oil being the obvious exception, which a strong military presence in the middle-east and a cash & carry policy could handle). Further, the pain of any embargo would be almost as great on the other side, since the US imports a substantial percentage of many countries' exports.

    I find this scenario to be highly interesting (not that I think it'd be a great idea, in spite of being an american capitalist pig-dog ;).

    What do you think?

  107. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As one who considers himself to be an unemployed American, I can say with confidence that the US unemployment situation is sound.

  108. Re:Useful by polar+red · · Score: 0

    The Americans are waging war on the Americans. To be more precise : The American High class is waging war on the American low class. They are winning : they already destroyed the middle class. The war will be over when deficit spending will catch up on itself.

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  109. america has accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but of course accuracy is restricted for military use only, same as the original GPS was originally

    i say more satelites is better,
    makes us a better target for space alien invasion

    1. Re:america has accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have two seperate systems, you can deploy new "clients" that utitilize both (in case one system goes down) and average the two systems together to get better accuracy than a single system can deliver, even if the military does turn down the accuracy for military reasons.

      Besides, your information is antiquated (to quote Smaug). GPS hasn't been downgraded for non-military users in YEARS. You are already getting the accurate service; it is not restricted to military use only.

  110. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To be honest I think that the next moon landing in the vicinity should either:

    Take down the American flag as a sign that the moon isn't American, or:

    Take up flags of all nations and place them alongside the American flag.

    --
    How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  111. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    The only point I intended to convey in my post was that Russia did not like the enlargement of the EU; hence their joining would seem an odd prospect.

    No judgement about whether Russia and Ukraine could work within the EU *if* they both wanted to join.

    I'm not sure how such a large EU would work, though. It's already pretty damn big as it is.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  112. hahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    xD. I really laughed with this. Plus it wouldn't be so strange if it happened... At least, as we can see on CNN

  113. Re:Useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will prove very useful for Europes war against America.

    America is already losing that (economic) war, with the US Dollar losing almost 30% of it's value against the Euro.

    The only way for the US to rebound is to either cut spending or to sell off assets to other countries.

    At the current rate, the US dollar will have the value of a confederate dollar in a few years (quite literally).

    The EU's investment in Galileo is a good one - with the financial priorities changing in the US, upgrades to GPS related to commercial users are sure to be defered.

  114. The GPS system needs an upgrade anyway by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    THis could be a very good thing, as the GPS system needs an upgrade anyway.

    Currently, the US is looking at possibly beginning deployment of a GPS V2.0 system, which would use the advances in technology that have occured since the system was first designed to improve the accuracy of the system - higher chip rates, better decoders, more accurate clocks on the birds themselves, and so on. The goal is to have a system that would provide centimeter accuracy to civilian receivers, and even better to military grade gear (it's not overkill, rather it is extra margin against degradation - having your accuracy degrade by an order of magnitude is not such a big deal when your accuracy is three orders of magnitude greater than you need.)

    Should the Europeans deploy a system of modern design - preferably a system that is designed to be right at the hoary edge of what is feasible today - they could reap the benefits of modern technology.

    1. Re:The GPS system needs an upgrade anyway by sgt101 · · Score: 1

      The critical movement in technology for GPS systems is the fundamental improvement of the models for calculating positions on earth from triangulations. Relative orbital positions are influenced by the relative postions of the oceans, geology and the positions of Jupiter, Sol and other planets. This is nothing to do with what is in the network itself.

      --
      --------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."
  115. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Why should that piss you off? As a citizen of the US, I absolutely DO NOT want a third party to be able to accurately aim a missile at the White House, the Capitol, or a nuclear power plant.
    You grow up. Anybody with the technology to build a missile with enough range, payload and accuracy to hit those targets effectively has the ability to make a nuclear weapon - which makes the issue of accurate targetting moot.

    Anyone with the competence to build a nuclear or biological weapon isn't going to bother with a missile. They're going to enter the country - probably perfectly legally, with valid, genuine documents, rent a house, build the weapon, and deliver it to the target in a pickup. Terrorists didn't need GPS to take out the World Trade Centre, and they won't need it to take out the White House.

    Starwars (and missile defence) are so last century.

    --
    I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
  116. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless that flag has a military base hidden inside it, you can't prevent anyone else from landing, which means, sorry pal, it's there for taking.

  117. Re:NO,Ivory Cost is Independant. Puerto Rico is No by mgs1000 · · Score: 1
    But the citizens are absolutely NOT american citizens

    Why don't you do a little research before you dispute what another person has posted?

    they have voted several times...but they do not have the ability to vote

    hehe

  118. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
    Ironically enough most of the chief engineers/scientist for that achievement were not Americans but Germans. As soon as they started dying off the US has not gone back to put more "flags." :)

    By the time of the moon shot the original von Braun people who did the V2 had mostly been replaced with Brits. The moon shot is often described as German technology, British brains and American money.

    Of course the money was the most difficult part.

    It would be amusing if someone set up a robot mission to go pick up some of the flags left behind, didn't the astronauts bring back their colours with them?

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  119. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by nyekulturniy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Considering that the Russian Federation has just developed a long-range cruise missile capacity, and that China has an advanced aerospace capacity and can make cruise missiles, too, I want their missiles to miss if they're aimed at me. (The purpose of air defense, by the way, is not to shoot down enemy aircraft; it's to make them MISS.)

    Tibet, I might point out, is part of China--reluctantly, but part of China, and the Chinese don't have to turn off the GPS to figure out what's there. A good topographic map and a compass will give every Chinese second lieutenant the chance to drive his convoy off the edge of a cliff, just as they do in all armies with new officers.

    --
    Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
  120. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    Right, but it isn't 70% of GDP - it would only cost 70% of the GDP if for some crazy reason the US chose to recall all its bonds and pay them in a single year - an option the US probably doesn't even have based on the agreements behind the bonds.

    If the US wanted to go cold turkey on the debt it would probably cost about 5% of GDP for a decade or two (it would probably take longer than that, but the cost would drop the whole time, so by 20 years out the interest bill is a LOT lower). By cold turkey I mean issuing no new bonds of any kind while still repaying bonds, and recalling them when it makes sense to do so and where the US has that option.

    Such an action would probably also cause a drop in interest rates and increased commercial investment - since the US would no longer be a competitor in the bond market. Certainly it would be expensive for the US, but not an instant disaster.

  121. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    Obviously trade between allied first-world nations is good for everyone. Nobody of any consequence in the US would advocate defaulting on the debt, and nobody in the US would want to get into a trade war with the whole world. True, the US could probably survive such a war, but over decades it would watch the worldwide standard of living pass it by.

    Trade is one of the best things out there for stopping wars - assuming trading partners have a similar stake. Most of the wars of late have involved dictators since their actions are not always rational - very few rational governemnts would choose to get into a war with a major trading partner. When you look at what you stand to gain and what you stand to lose, the stakes are just too high.

  122. Re:Global Tracking by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    However, if one of the two governments decided to shut down their system for whatever reason the other network would still work, making an unilateral action less effective.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  123. military vs civilian use by GoupilInside · · Score: 1

    I'm very surprised by the military orientation of the answers.

    GPS, if invented for military use, has seen its civilian use become so important that it probably surpass any war usage.

    I can understand that being in war US guys would think to army first, but I expected Slashdot people to much more see the scientific and technological opportunities openned by an increase in precision and features of a positionning system.

    By the way, the odds of the USA beeing in war with Russia, India or China are really low.
    Those countries are much likely to be engaged in limited conflicts with smaller neighbours, than in a large scale confrontation that nobody desire.
    And even if such an unlikely event happened, none of those country can match US power and particulary ICBM capacity, with or without Gallileo (even if some guys on /. seem to have an obsession about the PLA beeing the world most powerfull army).

    Most likely US pressures regarding Galileo have been more oriented against smaller countries that would use the system and are more likely targets.

    1. Re:military vs civilian use by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Actually, a US-China war is definately on the horizon if China ever decides to invade Taiwan. IMO it would cripple the world semi-conductor market, and most electronic manufacturing would be brought to a standstill. The US would never allow that to happen - too many politicians owned by the tech industry.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:military vs civilian use by GoupilInside · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I strongly disagree.

      I think that China will simply wait a few decades and recover Taiwan without a full scale invasion (after all Taiwan is mostly worth its infrastructure that would probably be destroyed in case of an invasion).

      But even if PRC invaded Taiwan, I bet that the whole world would just stare. We would be doing some protest at the UN, setting up some export restriction, and have some symbolic fleet patrol Pacific ocean to show that ... we care. Then we would slowly come back to the usual level of relationships. Then Taiwan would become something like HongKong and slowly be assimilated.

      China economy has become too big for occidental economies for us to risk a war against them, and the reverse is also true.

      Whatever happens, I don't believe that Taiwan will forever stay separated from the continent, and more likely both systems will slowly converge enougth to merge. After all both share the revendication to be The China.

      Anyway protection of Taiwan is a very specific thing that I can't see any big country entering a "world scale war" for. Taiwanese are mostly on their own, it's Real Politic. Expecting anything else is just sweet dreaming.

  124. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you think?

    I think without foreign oil we'd all be cannibals within 3 months.

    The rest of the world has us by the balls; one is called debt, and the other is called energy. Hopefully, they won't work this out before we get rid of Bush, because we've blown any moral capital we had left on Iraq.

  125. 150,000 jobs? Doing what? by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    150,000 jobs? Doing what? Manufacturing? Installation? Sales? Answering the phone?

    --
    -- No sig for you!
  126. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by jdhutchins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Simply don't care that the US pisses people off. This seems to be the prefered method. Understanding is deprecated.

    Why should we, the US, be forced put other nation's interests above our own? We may be the dominant nation, but that doesn't mean we have to cave in and support every other nation in their bid to do whatever they want. As far as blocking the Galileo system, why should we let our enemies have an advantage? It's war; it's not fair. It's not like we're blocking it for the world, but as said before, there are some targets that we'd rather not have attacked, and this system would make low-cost, very high-precision guidance systems available. Why should we have to risk it?

  127. Competition by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    > Is this just a pork-barrel project, or something
    > Europe really needs to break the reliance on U.S.
    > space technology?

    It's something the world needs. Choice is good.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  128. Higher accuracy means LESS civilian damages in war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consider this. Weapon site next to civilian site. With highly accurate GPS the weapon site can be picked out.

    Now a terrorist does not care about accuracy. Any old site will do and the more random the better.

    Accurate GPS only helps civilians and military but terrorists do not care either way.

  129. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by guet · · Score: 1

    What do you think?

    Err, perhaps no-one would lend you money anymore, and the government would be broke? With a currency spiralling out of control, and no assets (which anyone else trusted) to secure more debt against.
    You can't keep printing money forever. The US would become a pariah state, more so than it is at the moment, particularly if it attempted to secure more oil by military means.

    Your arrogance is surprising (Going to war with the US is a bad idea) considering the situation the US is in at the moment in Iraq. The US can't afford this war, let alone another.

  130. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it is OUR system, you dumbfuck. You have GPS satellites circling over our heads, so why the hell do you think you have any say in what we do with our positioning system?

  131. Tracking... by jpop32 · · Score: 1

    I for one do not trust European governments.

    Well, I for one will welcome our new European overlords.

    Hopefully, in a few years when my country (Croatia) joins the EU. I believe that, as far as overlords go, we could do worse. A lot worse.

  132. Re:NO,Ivory Cost is Independant. Puerto Rico is No by skahshah · · Score: 1

    Apparently, he didn't even read the text he linked to.

  133. One concern, though. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    Will the Galileo system require everyone to get all-new satellite navigation receivers to full take advantage of the system?

    If it does, it could get pretty expensive as you'll need to buy new portable receivers, new navigation systems for motor vehicles, and new navigation systems for airplanes and boats.

    1. Re:One concern, though. by spankus · · Score: 1

      Yes,

      Galileo will require new receivers, but the advantages will be that you can use both services on one receiver.

      Apparently Galileo is trying to charge for what the USA gives out for free. Good luck on that business model!

    2. Re:One concern, though. by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      Don't think of it as expensive, think of it as good for the economy. Sort of the like the mythical re-buying of all DVDs in HD.

      Besides, a GPS chip is only $5 and a GPS receiver with software is $150 retail. I suspect Galileo hardware won't be much more expensive.

    3. Re:One concern, though. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Besides, a GPS chip is only $5 and a GPS receiver with software is $150 retail. I suspect Galileo hardware won't be much more expensive.

      That would be true for consumer-grade receivers, but receivers that need to be very accurate (automobiles, boats, and airplanes) could get quite expensive if they have to be designed to accommodate both GPS and Galileo. :-(

    4. Re:One concern, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While Galileo will charge subscription fees, there will be several tiers of subscription.

      1 - Consumer signal (Free of charge) - essentially, an improved version of the conventional GPS/WAAS systems combined - estimated accuracy better than 3 metres.

      2 - Commercial signal (subscription) - much the same as the encrypted military high-precision GPS system, but with the same enhancements as the consumer service - est. accuracy better than 1 meter.

      3 - Public services signal (government/utility only) - similar to 2, but with an additional signal which is much more resistant to jamming or interference.

  134. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem is he's not alone. Trust me, nukes or not, as soon as the entire world hates you, you're in serious trouble.

  135. Re:NO,Ivory Cost is Independant. Puerto Rico is No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they allowed to vote for the US president?
    Are they allowed to participate in congress?
    What makes us an american citizen is not somebody declaring us one, but the ability to elect ALL of those that effect us. They have no representation at the federal level, and they are not allowed to vote for national level (except those that have done military service who are then granted full citienship). They have just a little bit more rights than do the Iraqis

    Why don't you do a little research before you dispute what another person has posted?

  136. Re:150,000 jobs? Doing what? by jpop32 · · Score: 1

    150,000 jobs? Doing what?

    I guess that can rougly be translated as 150,000 people will have something to do with this. Not jobs that will be created out of thin air.

    Count all the people that work in all of compaines that will be doing the engineering, manufacturing, accounting, servicing, driving, consulting... On a high-tech project lasting a couple of years, with a budget like that, you can easily arrive at that figure.

    A single commercial space launch of any kind probably involves thousands of people.

  137. USA needs to stard treating Europe as equal by cabalamat2 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why should we, the US, be forced put other nation's interests above our own?

    The USA shouldn't; and nor should Europe be forced to put the USA's interests above its own

  138. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

    A nuke within a "couple of miles" off its target would still vapourize the target.

    Maybe 50 miles off target could safely be called a 'miss'.

  139. Another military superpower would be nice by Broom+Hillary · · Score: 1

    Since the cold war ended, the US government doesn't feel as much need to respect the civil rights of its citizens. Who are we going to run to? Who will grant us asylum, when the US is the sole military superpower?

    Please, please EU, become a military superpower, and tell Bush to take his "Hertz Doctrine" and stuff it.

    The EU becoming a military superpower would be the best thing that could possibly happen for political stability and civil rights in the US.

    1. Re:Another military superpower would be nice by tfiedler · · Score: 1

      100% agree. I only wish that I, as a US citizen, could get a work visa and move to Europe as easily as Europeans can come here!

      --
      Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
    2. Re:Another military superpower would be nice by zeux · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's very hard to get a visa these days.

      I'm french and I worked in the US for a year and a half. I had a VERY hard time to get my visa and I heard it's getting even worse.

      But no big deal though because the "Brain drain" seems to be reversing since the mid-90s. Looks like scientists now prefer going to India and China...

    3. Re:Another military superpower would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that hard to get a European work visa if you are in high tech. Several of my coworkers come from outside the EU.

  140. Of course it is dual use by cabalamat2 · · Score: 1

    Some people have criticised Galileo saying it is "dual use", i.e. it can be used for military applications.

    But that's a nonsensical argument; all general-purpose technology has potential military uses, so if we accept the argument that Europe shouldn't develop Galileo because it is dual uise, then Europe shouldn't develop any advanced technology at all.

    BTW, Israel is also a partner in Galileo; is Israel also part of a sinister evil plot to attack the USA?

  141. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0
    why should France/ Estonia /Germany/ other EU nation rely on a US system
    Well they'd have to rely on the US for everything else, so why not?
    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  142. American leaders should grow up by cabalamat2 · · Score: 1
    "freedom fries" [...] made it very clear to all Europe that they're not dealing with adults.

    The USA will have to get used to the EU: its economy now surpasses the USA's, it continues its Borg-like growth, and it's starting to find its feet internationally.

  143. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
    It's their money and it's their policy
    Depends on who you mean by "them". If you mean the citizens then yes, it's our taxes paying for it. But we didn't make the decision, it was made by unelected bureacrats.

    It's just a transfer of funds from the other countries in the EU to France.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  144. That's a bit ridiculous. by i41Overlord · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you really think terrorists or enemy nations need to use GPS or Galileo to attack these buildings? They didn't need it to attack the WTC or the Pentagon. Besides, there are a lot of things I don't like in the world. That doesn't give me the right to tell people that they don't have free will. Europe can put up their Galileo if they want, just like we put up GPS when we wanted. Oh, and third parties have been accurately been able to aim missiles at the white house for the last 35 years.

  145. Cheaper than 2 weeks of Iraq occupation by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seeing that the USA spends $5Billion per month on the occupation of Iraq, I think we have very little grounds to call this a "pork barrel" project. These satellites will be undeniably useful to everyone in the world. Compared to other things that $2.1B buys you, this is a great deal.

  146. HAHAH silly USians by BushIsEvil · · Score: 0

    You grow up. Anybody with the technology to build a missile with enough range, payload and accuracy to hit those targets effectively has the ability to make a nuclear weapon - which makes the issue of accurate targetting moot.

    Yes, YES! This is such an insightful post! We all know you don't have to target nuclear missles! Especially not at the white house! There is no nuclear bunker in there! They have no such defenses against the powerful european, chinese and russian nuclear missles! Hell we could fire one of the superior socialist missles and be off by 200 miles and it would still destroy everything and everyone! These silly Americans have been fooled by their facist propaganda to believe they are safe. They continually vote for the dictator George W Bush and we all know George W. Bush rigged the 2000 election so that SUV owners, oil companies, Republicans, white men, and the Christian Coalition could kill Muslims.

    --
    George Bush Banned my IP Address!
  147. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    As a citizen of the EU, I absolutely DO NOT want a third party to be able to accurately aim a missile at the European Parliament
    As a citizen of the EU, I prefer a hit to near-miss. No, in fact, I'd prefer a hit to anything. Bunch of criminals, all of them.
  148. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by fermion · · Score: 2, Informative
    The debt is more a control and transparency issue. Like other countries, we can just keep borrowing to pay the interest, so defaulting is not an issue.

    First, around 3 trillion dollars of the debt is intragovernment. That is, the government borrows from the money that is needed to pay the house insurance at the end of the year to pay the light bill now. All of us that have had to do this know it is a dangerous game. Although many say we can always borrow more money to extend term with creditors, this part of the debt has not been borrowed.

    The rest, exceeding $4 trillion and approaching 5, is held publicly. The figures I have seen indicate that foreign ownership is approaching 50%. Now, I don't know who many of you are in debt, but if you are you know the people who you owe money to own you. It the 70's the citizens of the US own the country. Now Japan does. I am not being chauvinistic, just realistic. If we owe several billion dollars to someone, then we are not going to do a lot to piss that person off. We may act macho in the UN, or shake out fists in Iraq, but that is mostly just our temper tantrums because we cannot have everything we want.

    Currently the US appears to be taxing at 15% of GDP and spending at 20%. Our lifestyle depends on other countries lending us money. We are no longer our own man.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  149. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
    EU goal is to enlarging to East Europe and to incorporate Russia.
    In Soviet Russia, goal was to incorporate EU!

    Russia couldn't join the EU any more than the US could join Canada or China join Taiwan; it would, by definition, be the other way round.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  150. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    From what I've seen reported, the cost of paying the interest alone, in terms of federal income, is comfortably in double figures, which isn't to be laughed at.

    Measuring in terms of GDP is silly, because GDP is a measure of a country's economic sector, not of how much money it has to spend. And as this debt is federal, it's federal income rather than GDP that the cost of paying it back should be measured against or, in other words, as a percentage of tax dollars in.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  151. Europe really needs to break the reliance on U.S. by Fuzzums · · Score: 3, Informative

    yes, they do.

    1st. it's good to be independent (you never know when bush shuts-off the gps for non-us use)
    2nd. it's good to have backups (good for the eu and the us)
    3rd. it's cool ;)

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  152. well, get used to it by jeif1k · · Score: 1

    As a citizen of the US, I absolutely DO NOT want a third party to be able to accurately aim a missile at the White House, the Capitol, or a nuclear power plant.

    Nobody wants foreign powers to be able to aim missiles at their cities. But the US can aim and guide missiles where it pleases and is refusing to give up that capability. Therefore, there is no reason why the Europeans shouldn't be able to do the same. In fact, the US government has stated itself that it wants the Europeans to develop their own high-tech military capabilities. That includes their own GPS system, their own missiles, and other technology. And the Europeans aren't just going to pay for high tech weapons and then put them under US control.

    This kind of development is inevitable anyway: Europe is becoming stronger and more independent. But the really big change will occur when India and China are starting to develop their own high-tech dual-use technologies, in particular, space technologies, and they are not going to be bound by cultural affiliations with the US.

    You better get used to it now because this sort of thing is unavoidable.

  153. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    However, GDP impactst the ability of a country to raise taxes. Federal income can be made much higher if it needs to be. A huge portion of the wealth in the USA is in the hands of people far above poverty levels - that wealth could be tapped without major social disaster. It wouldn't be good for the economy, but it wouldn't cause it to collapse either. And lowering the public debt probably wouldn't hurt the economy in the long run.

    I'm not saying that the US debt level is a good thing. I'm just saying that if foreign nations refuse to buy bonds we won't suddenly start living in adobe houses.

    Clearly all the benefits of paying off the debt are better obtained by paying it off in a sensible manner, and by restricting government spending now. If the US wanted to pay off the debt it certainly could - it just lacks political willpower at this point...

  154. cooperation goes both ways by jeif1k · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With Gallileo on the other hand, good luck getting the ruling body (by the people, for the people) to agree quick enough for it to make a difference.

    And how much did the US listen to international input when deciding to invade Iraq? Cooperation goes both ways, and the US government has demonstrated that it will do whatever it pleases, no matter what the international community says. And it's not just Iraq: the US has recently ignored, violated, and abrogated lots of international treaties.

    From the perspective of other nations, the US is looking increasingly untrustworthy and unreliable, and that's why they have to start building their own infrastructure.

    If you don't like the way decisions are made in Europe, that's tough: Europeans don't like the way decisions are made in the US either, and there are more of them around (ditto for Indians and Chinese).

    1. Re:cooperation goes both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure who said it first, but Ghandi used to say that you become what you hate. America has been so fearful and hateful of anything and everyone they label "rogue nations" that they have BECOME one themselves. 9/11 changed the world all right, it shook the American spirit so hard that they have decided to live in a mode of fear and retribution indefinitely. It is really a very sad thing that so great a country has fallen so far.

  155. You don't need much money to wage a war. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    Surprisingly war is one of those things you can do without much money. It sounds backwards but think about it. North Korea affords to keep its military strong even though it is broke, and the US was able to swing to full wartime production and wage war even after the Great Depression of the 1930's.

    Probably because in those cases, the government doesn't ask you to fight and build tanks, it tells you to.

    Going to war with the US is still a bad idea.

  156. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
    A nuke within a "couple of miles" off its target would still vapourize the target.

    Actually, a 1 megaton blast will only vaporize things out to about .6 miles, and the "completely flattened buildings" radius only goes to about 1.7 miles. A couple of miles is a MISS for a hardened target.

    This is all moot, though, because ICBMs don't use GPS for guidance.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  157. Re:Global Tracking by Hrdina · · Score: 1
    That's not entirely true. SA (Selective Availability) will affect only GPS, not GLONASS or Galileo. They can no doubt jam the others, though.

    And the newer satellites most certainly do have SA. SA was turned off (set to zero) back in 2000. At that time, the GPS Block IIR satellites were the most modern, and that is still the case. The capability still exists to reactivate SA if desired.

    The next new hardware, GPS Block IIF is scheduled to begin launches in a few years. I do not know whether they also have SA capability, but I would be shocked if they did not.

  158. sad by jeif1k · · Score: 1

    The sad thing is that one even has to contemplate these issues. And the fault for that lies entirely with recent US unilateralism. A nation that wants to be the leader of the free world has responsibilities to listen to the concerns of the free world, but as Bush and other politicians have made crystal clear recently, America always comes first and they will only do what is in America's best interest. That amounts to an abdication of US leadership.

    But even if the US were not adopting such hostile policies, US influence would be diminishing over the next several decades anyway: without both massive foreign borrowing and a strong dollar, the US simply cannot sustain its standard of living, let alone its huge military. But the current deficits are not sustainable: the US has to cut back while other nations pull ahead economically, and hence militarily.

    1. Re:sad by calidoscope · · Score: 1
      And the fault for that lies entirely with recent US unilateralism.

      Depending on what you mean by recent...

      The US wanted to put economic pressure on the Soviet Union after the invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979, that it trying something that didn't involve military force. Europe basically told the US to go screw themselves, they weren't going to do anything to support the effort.

      Then there's Bosnia - an incredible amount of slaughter was going on Eurpoean soil - which didn't get stopped until the US intervened. This is something that should have been handled by a purely European force.

      Going back into history, the US public did not want to get involved in either WW1 or WW2 - the US involvement unintentionally killing 20 to 100 million people via the "Spanish flu".

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    2. Re:sad by jeif1k · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. No matter whether the US was right or wrong in specific instances (and we won't ever know whether that was the best course of action anyway), the US still acted unilaterally. Cooperation sometimes means following a course of action that you may not think is right but that others do.

      So, your examples are just further examples of US unilateralism. The fact that the US may have been right in hindsight on some of these doesn't change that. The US has, after all, also been wrong on many other of its unilateral actions.

    3. Re:sad by calidoscope · · Score: 1
      The US has, after all, also been wrong on many other of its unilateral actions.

      The history of 20th century Europe, with two major wars, does not give European diplomacy much credibility. The only reason that there wasn't a third major war was that the US had occupied Europe for several decades after the end of WW2. WW1 was supposed to be the "War to end all wars", but ended up to being a prelude to an even larger war.

      And another thing, Europe as we know it now will have ceased to exist by the end of this century. Unless the Europeans learn how to develop multicultural societies, the social tensions built up by immigration and declining native population will tear them apart.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    4. Re:sad by jeif1k · · Score: 1

      The history of 20th century Europe, with two major wars, does not give European diplomacy much credibility.

      The US fought pretty much all the local conflicts it was geographically capable of fighting and then went on occupying one island nation after another. The only reason it stopped because it ran out of enemies. That's in addition to a bloody civil war and a genocide perpetrated against native Americans. Since WWII, the US has been involved in one military conflict after another, often several simultaneously.

      US diplomacy has always consisted of the US government getting its will, by any means possible. The only difference between US diplomacy and, say, France is that the US happens to have been successful with that approach in recent history.

      Unless the Europeans learn how to develop multicultural societies, the social tensions built up by immigration and declining native population will tear them apart.

      I don't think Europe has to fear any comparison in that regard with the US. While there is a lot of hand-wringing over racism in Europe, when you look at the economic and social facts on the ground, Europe is in a far better position than the US.

    5. Re:sad by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Whereas the US is of course a heaven of reason, tolerance and goodwill, where everyone regardless of their race, creed or birth is treated with the same respect and given the same chances to share in the American Dream.

      Give me a break. Having lived (not just travelled) in many countries including the US it seems to me that the problems experienced in Europe right now because of immigration are not in any way worse than those happening in most American cities. In fact the violent crime rate in Europe is still 10% of what it is in the US.

  159. surpasses the USA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Growth through acquisition may allow them to surpass the US's total GDP (they may already have), but it won't make the EU surpass the US in per-capita GDP. Because of course, as they pick up GDP they also pick up population. And the EU rate of economic growth is lower than the US and likely will remain so.

    http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

    I agree the US has to get used to the EU. The US can't make the EU go away by complaining about it. But on the other hand, I'm not sure that wildly disparate countries can be tied together economically. I think the EU will either have to cement together or break apart.

    It'll be interesting to find what the future holds.

    As to the original question, this seems like massive pork to me. But whatever.

    1. Re:surpasses the USA? by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Growth through acquisition may allow them to surpass the US's total GDP (they may already have), but it won't make the EU surpass the US in per-capita GDP.

      Be that as it may, it's not relevant in this context. China has a very low GDP per capita, it's still an important political and economical power.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  160. GPS 4 peace [Re: Competition] by j.leidner · · Score: 2, Insightful
    And as for Europe declaring war on the US (with what, a very limited nuclear arsenal compared to the massive US stockpile?)

    Exactly. The US have piled up tons of VX nerve gas, and chemical/atomic weapons (yes, WMD by any definition) and THAT is wasting taxpayers' money, IMHO, not launching another GPS service. Some things have to be done multiple times to learn and incrementally improve the technology. It's good not to have to rely on US technology, but to have everything available locally, because this gives Europe more independence.

    And about attacking: honestly, this is thank God the last thing Europeans have in mind. Our American friends are more under attack from the inside: their economy is stumbling, and there is an unprecedented loss of those values that were considered US-American (civil liberties, for instance).

    Thankfully Europe is a project about peace and long-term economic strength, not about waging more unnecessary wars. By the way, if you're interested in how GPS is to be seen as a mosaic piece of a larger process of human learning, and how better navigation improves scientific progress and understanding, I recommend the book The Mapmakers (2nd ed).

    --
    Coolbeans! The patent-pending Nuggets , SMS search engine -- text your questions, get your answers from the Web.

  161. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    What the federal governments could do and what it will do are two different things. The fact remains that the cost of serving the deficit is higher now than it's ever been (because the deficit's higher than it's even been), which means that the proportion of tax dollars wasted on just paying that interest rather than on schools, police, etc is disproportionately high.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  162. American Technology Hegemony? by lophophore · · Score: 2, Informative

    Many of the posters here seem to think that the US is opposed to the Galileo system because the technology will be "better" than the current GPS system.

    I don't believe that. If the US military-industrial complex was worried about superior foreign technology, they would have already bombed Toyota, Honda, Sony, etc. out of existence!

    The American military is worried that a system such as Galileo allows much, much simpler creation of missile and other automatically guided weapons systems. The current GPS system supports "selective availability" where the accuracy can be deliberately degraded during times or war or other threats.

    The Galileo partners should be worried that when the American military feels threatened, the usual "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy will prevail, and the Galileo system will be jammed or destroyed to protect American interests. (At that same time, the current GPS system would be deliberately degraded or disabled.) I would bet money on that.

    --
    there are 3 kinds of people:
    * those who can count
    * those who can't
    1. Re:American Technology Hegemony? by GoupilInside · · Score: 1

      In international law, "shooting" a satellite is an act of war, like sinking a boat or invading a country.

      I'm sure US would consider twice before doing anything like that.

      Sadly we are moving quickly to a militarisation of space, and those questions will probably become more common in the next years.

  163. GPS has indoor positioning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a question of receivers. And receivers are available now that are sensitive enough to work indoors.

    GPS has progressed greatly in the 20 years. The mathematical models improved greatly, increaseing the accuracy of fixes (actually, compensating for the period of selective availability). Then WAAS and differential GPS came around.

    GPS hasn't stood still. Honestly, if it hadn't I don't think the EU would be "surpassing" GPS right now. I mean, as far as I can tell, there's not a lot of actual innovation here, just replication. Although I'm sure changes are made to make it incompatible with current GPS receivers so that EU companies/governments (is there really a difference between the two when it comes to aerospace anyway?) can get license fees from equipment vendors.

    Yeah, the thing that pains me the most is that Europeans and European countries engage in the same assholish techniques that US companies started to do a while back. I don't see a lot of benefit for humanity in this. It was bad enough when only members of one country did it.

  164. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by jpop32 · · Score: 1

    What happens if the US defaults?

    Well, shit hits the fan. The whole world economy will tank. At the moment, south-east Asia is crediting the ongoing US mad spending. Because it's Aisan goods they're buying, they have a direct economic interest. US government's hope is that the dollar will continue to slide, but in a slow, controlled fashion, so the huge $ debts won't mean as much 10 years down the line.

    It's a rather large bet, it seems to me, and if Asia blinks for whatever reason, and starts demanding higher inerest rates on US treasuries, the people in the US could be in for a very rough ride.

    Of course, noone will invade the US because of it, that would be silly. If someone owes you lots of money, he becomes your long-term partner, not an enemy. :-)

    I guess we'll see.

  165. we sent troops to Haiti too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the last year.

    We actually should have sent more, but we've overstretched our military.

    Haiti is not a US territory. So just retarget the analogy there.

  166. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    I didn't think opinion about the EU was bad within those countries that are a part of it.

    I've heard target dates from 20 to 70 before the EU goes sour and bad things happen. I can't disagree with that assesment but do not wish for it. An unstable europe is a bad thing.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  167. Re:Europe really needs to break the reliance on U. by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

    What makes you think Bush will be in power by the time the EU launches galileo? Four years is pretty quick time to get a satellite from spec to space IMO.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  168. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by GoupilInside · · Score: 1

    I think you're missing a point.
    All nuclear weapons are not equal, all targets are not equal.

    Countries with decade of experience with those devices can build very efficient warheads, most of the other don't.
    Most "proliferating" nuclear countries are building A bombs whose effect are far more limited and for which precision against hardened targets would matter.

    But, against immobile, well known targets, they would probably use precalculated trajectories, corrected through inertial systems, that may provide good enough positionning without any satellite help.

    Anyway GPS positionning is becomming commodity, like roads and railways.
    Those also facilitate potential invading forces or terrorists work, but nobody would argue to have them disabled.

    I think it is called "progress" but I may jus be a dreamer.

  169. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

    Worse than that, the value of the US dollar, like any other currency, depends on supply and demand, and demand for the dollar depends very much on the dollar being a global reserve currency due to oil mostly being priced in dollars (i.e. most countries need to buy, and maintain reserves of, US dollars to pay for Saudi etc oil priced in dollars).

    Now, as is already starting to happen, when the world starts to shift to oil priced in Euros instead of dollars, then demand for the dollar will plummet and it's value will take a dive... and there's nothing the US can do about it. It's the oil producing countries that have control over what currency to price their product in...

  170. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

    If the US defaults on it's debt, then it's debt rating wil go to crap, and the US economy will grind to a halt as the US finds itself unable to borrow money... of course it'd be cool to see a US government forced to balance it's budget, but imagine the effect in times of war... In the last few years Bush has over-spent the budget to the tune of about $20,000 per US household ($2T total) - imagine if that was not borrowed money, but instead came out of your taxes...

  171. they do have full citizenship by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Doing military service does not change their citizenship status at all. All Puerto Ricans have full citizenship.

    They cannot vote for federal races because the US is a federal system whereby states are represented in Congress and the Presidency, so US citizens who do not live in a US State have no state to represent them. This is identical to the situation in Washington, D.C.

  172. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by jpop32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Like other countries, we can just keep borrowing to pay the interest, so defaulting is not an issue.

    Like... Argentina?

  173. Re:Global Tracking by topham · · Score: 1

    Selective Availability doesn't actually work.

    It did work, but several methods have been found to reduce the effect SA had to the point where it was no longer relevant.

    Completely Jamming, or disabling the GPS system is the only thing which would have enough of an effect.

    Seriously, 100 meters isn't off by much where you average ordanance is distributed in a 20-30 or more, radius arround your target, and that assumes some very high accuracy.

  174. colonialism by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    A huge number of the bloody conflicts of the later half of the 20th century are directly a result of French colonialism.

    Remember the Vietnam War and Ho Chi Minh? Well, everyone knows about the US fighting him, but that was only the end of the warFrance started the war in 1945 when they tried to "reclaim" their colony in French Indochina, and continued to fight until they suffered a massive defeat in 1954. When they withdrew in 1954, they signed a cease-fire that partitioned the country into a Communist north and a pro-western but weak south, which set the stage for the subsequent war as the US allied itself with the newly-created(-by-France) South Vietnam.

    During this time, there were other revolts happening in Africa, most notably the one in Madagascar, where after a bloody two-year campaign the French successfully suppressed the pro-independence forces (1947-49).

    Coincidentally (or not?), 1954 was the year that tensions boiled over in Algeria, where France had been confiscating Muslim land and giving it to French settlers for decades. The Algerian National Front started a guerilla conflict, which raged until they forced a French withdrawal in 1962.

    The total number of people killed by the French in these attempts to maintain colonial subjugation number in the millions.

    1. Re:colonialism by thisgooroo · · Score: 1

      basically what every colonial power did when the colonies developed independence movements. the dutch did it in indonesia, the brits in india and kenya, the belgians in congo

    2. Re:colonialism by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Essentially you are correct in saying that the situation in the colonies around the world just after WWII set the stage for more bloody conflict.

      However all the colonial powers have a share in the responsibility, not just France.

      Also don't forget that in many instances of war of independance the US and the colonial powers were in face allies. This is the case for both Algeria and Indochina. The US were mortally afraid that communist regimes would emerge should the colonial power withdraw. In the case of Indochina and Algeria this is what happened in fact.

      Remember that Ho-Chi-Minh first asked the US for help for getting rid of the French, but that the US administration turned him down. So the US must shoulder a part of the blame as well.

      Finally conservatively the US killed 3 millions in Viet-Nam. I wouldn't want to start bandying around death tolls and getting into a dispute of which is the worst killer state.

  175. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by deesine · · Score: 0

    "The entire world hates America."
    "Bush = Hitler"

    Has psychology named the condition where one's hyperbole meter is stuck on '10'?

    'Immature' maybe?

    --
    damaged by dogma
  176. Maybe the Europeans are pissing US off? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Rumsfeld makes one comment about "old Europe", which is entirely accurate because of falling french and german populations, and it causes a transatlantic uproar. Meanwhile, Chirac and Shroeder criss cross the globe bashing America at every possible opportunity, and we're supposed to take that. It's total BS. The best thing for America to do would be to completely withdraw from NATO and announce to the world that European security is no longer a priority, then, hop into bed with Russia. You know, that country that actually didn't cave into the Nazis the way the France did.

    --
    This is my sig.
  177. Sounds good to me. by tjstork · · Score: 0, Troll

    Let Brussels do its own security and get US troops out of NATO. Instead of constantly trying to make the French happy, form a new military alliance consisting of Russia, Great Britian, and probably Poland. By the way, we'll sell Poland the h-bomb.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Sounds good to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can count on the spanish as well, we hate the french like anything too.

  178. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by adeydas · · Score: 1

    please read this article: http://science.howstuffworks.com/dirty-bomb1.htm. its not the explosion that causes the problem, its the readiation that spreads afterwards...

  179. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Or you could stop making more hostiles.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  180. What's really sad... by deesine · · Score: 1, Insightful

    is the number of people who believe the world is a totally safe place, and if it isn't so, then America must have made it that way. 'US unilaterism' is another way of saying the French and Germans didn't want to invade Iraq because of oil & weapons deals they had made with Saddam.

    "[T]he leader of the free world has responsibilities to listen to the concerns of the free world."

    What concerns? Did you know the USA gives more in the way of (government & non-government) aid to other countries than ALL other countries combined? So if America does, as you have predicted, fall, then God help us if we had to depend on the altruism of Europe.

    --
    damaged by dogma
    1. Re:What's really sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually thats total bullshit. The US international aid budget, per capita (the only meaningful comparison) is pitiful compared to the EU countries. see http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kai/foreignaid.html http://homepage.tinet.ie/~cosgrave/photo/oda9097.g if

    2. Re:What's really sad... by deesine · · Score: 0

      The link provided only listed government international aid as a ratio to gross national product. The US, with the largest gross national product of all the countries listed, would of course have one of the lowest ratios.

      This gives amounts in total dollars.

      And remember this is only GOVERNMENT aid, not non-government aid: those statistics are hard to come by, escpecially since most countries don't track those numbers.

      The ACTUAL number of dollars given is the ONLY number that matters to the recipient. Who cares that your country gave 10% of GNP to foreign aid when that only amounts to a small amount of ACTUAL aid?!

      --
      damaged by dogma
    3. Re:What's really sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This gives amounts in total dollars.

      Even with your figures, your claim is totally wrong: the US doesn't give more money than "all of Europe combined"; France, Germany, and the UK together give more than the US, and that's using your numbers and a still fairly strong 2003 dollar.

      The ACTUAL number of dollars given is the ONLY number that matters to the recipient.

      Yes, but the percentage of GDP is what one needs to look at in order to assess the generosity of the donor, which seems to be lacking.

      Who cares that your country gave 10% of GNP to foreign aid when that only amounts to a small amount of ACTUAL aid?!

      Whether it's 10% or 0.1% makes a big difference to the donor, and it's the donor we are talking about here. The US is a stingy donor, while Norway, Denmark, etc., are 10 times as generous.

      If you don't like hearing it from me, go read your Bible; it basically says the same thing.

    4. Re:What's really sad... by krist0 · · Score: 1

      course, america had deals with saddam too, up until the first gulf war. Gotta love the photos of ole Rummy hanging out with Saddam.

      And the weapons, oh the weapons. I guess you also forget that america gave shedloads of weapons to the ole Butcher of Baghdad during the Iran/Iraq war. Those chemicals used to gas the Kurds, wonder who they INITALLY came from?

      tsk tsk.

      --
      all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
    5. Re:What's really sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...america had deals with saddam too, up until the first gulf war.

      No doubt they made deals to "let" him stay in power afterwords also, as long he continued to use dollars in the "oil for food" program(a sad joke from the beginning). Even now I'm sure he's not suffering much in club fed. Free food, room, medical, all of it first class. He probably gets his virgins when he wants. And the regular Iraqis continue to suffer as before. But with a 100 to 1 kill ratio, the Americans are winning, right? Shame on us for permitting this.

  181. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

    Yes, I know how they work. The part you're missing is that there will be so little radioactive material, spread over such a wide area, that there is no danger from it. Don't start being afraid just because the magic "nuclear" word is involved.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  182. Why an agreement? by Sebastopol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I don't get is why the EU had to reach an agreement with the US? The EU should just use GWB's strategy and do whatever the hell it wants.

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:Why an agreement? by BitterOak · · Score: 1
      What I don't get is why the EU had to reach an agreement with the US? The EU should just use GWB's strategy and do whatever the hell it wants.

      Well, neither of the two systems would be useful if the frequencies overlapped and interfered with each other. Also wouldn't be too useful if the satellites collided with each other in their orbits. So some degree of cooperation is necessary.

      Beyond that, certain design decisions could be made that allowed the two systems to interoperate in a way that maximized the gain in accuracy obtained with the extra redundancy. In addition it would probably be much easier for the European systems to do their initial calibration if they had cooperation from the US GPS folks.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:Why an agreement? by RosenSama · · Score: 1

      If you follow the right link in "reached an agreement" link in this article you'll get your answer. The agreement ensures "compatibility" and "non-interference"

    3. Re:Why an agreement? by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Thanks, you should have been modded for the info.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  183. Indicator of european discontent and mistrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EOM

  184. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by Jameth · · Score: 1

    Yep, the UK has a much better debt situation. Have you recently looked at Germany (64% of GDP), France (68%), Italy (106%), Spain (62%), Japan (154%), or Canada (77%)? In case you were wondering, those are most the rest of the G8. That leaves Russia (34%) and the UK (33%) as the only two not in the same boat as the US (and Russia has other problems; they're no great example of what to do).

  185. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit. V1's and v2's had accuracy enough
    to hit their broad area targets and the germans
    screwed the pocch with their nuke program: with
    a little help. You can look back at parallel
    discursions in invention that boggle the mind.
    Civilizations that create accurate and fairly
    sophisticated mathematical systems and fail
    to devise the wheel,etc..

  186. Re:Tracking... POSTED BY AN AMERICAN ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don`t trust the EU, but we should trust you ?

    Try this:
    google: echelon or carnivore

  187. GPS Misconceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of the posts on this subject show a lack of information about GPS.
    First off, it's original purpose (since the early '70s) has been to provide mid-course correction to submarine launched ballistic missiles. No matter how good the inertial tracking systems in a boomer, they still don't have an accurate enough idea of where they are located at launch. Land-based ICBMs have very accurate location information, so the trajectory is merely an exercise in astronautics. Some land-based ICBMs have special systems to make them more accurate - not by changing the calculated trajectory but to account for the vagaries of upper-atmosphere winds and other random factors. Therefore, the military threat of a GPS is making things more accurate. SLBMs, cruise missiles, gravity bombs, artillery, and unit locations all benefit from GPS. Interestingly, all but the SLBMs seem to fall within the EU promise of providing service in anything short of global war which would be yet another factor encouraging limited warfare.
    GPS is inherently not accurate enough for use in Air Traffic Control. This is true even when using Precision (P-Mode) during times of no anti-civilan use jamming. The error space of a GPS position is three dimensional but not globular - it depends upon the exact geometry of the satellites used in a fix. For example, if all six or so satellites happen to be at roughly the same elevation from the receiver's viewpoint, the vertical accuracy is much lower than the horizontal accuracy.
    The only way (barring use of higher frequencis) to improve accuracy is to ensure that more satellites are available at a wider variety of elevations and azimuths. Increased power will only allow the receiver to listen to satellites which it otherwise might not find, but those are at such marginally useful El/Az that they can't improve accuracty. On the other hand, increased power might overcome any EU-specific versions of the old Soviet-bloc GPS jammers.
    There has been a solution to the aircraft control problem since the '80s - differential GPS. Simply placing a GPS transmitter at a known location on the ground will ensure that comparisons between the satellite transmissions and the ground station allows for super-accurate position determination. If we wanted to use GPS for automatic landings, we need only put differential GPS transmitters in Terminal Control Areas (TCAs) - which the FAA has proposed. There's absolutely nothing stopping other countries from taking this course - which is much cheaper than flying their own satellite constellation.
    Finally, the whole civilian jamming mode has become moot. All it amounts to is changing the three-week Gold key on the P-Mode and advertising a slightly wrong time in Coarse (C-Mode). Thus, a civilian receiver, without the latest Gold code, can't determine the correct position information. However, time clocks are now so cheap and accurate that any hand-held system can have nearly as accurate a time as the GPS satellite (cesium clocks). Since the satellites' orbits are easily determined and known, a receiver can ignore the Gold code. The reciever knows from its own time where the satellite must be. From there it's simply a matter of doing like surveyors have been doing since the '80s and measure the wavelength of signals from the satellites.
    Bottom line - at best this is an EU boondoggle, corporate welfare for EU aerospace contractors. At worst, this is an attempt to sell more robust GPS services to China, India, and Russia. The latter would not be surprising in view of EU countries' proclivity to sell any military technology to anybody.

    1. Re:GPS Misconceptions by sgt101 · · Score: 1

      The Russians run a GPS network of their own. It is called GLONASS and has been operational for 20 years, and is currently as well maintained, or better maintained (given US launcher problems) than GPS.

      The Chinese have no real concerns about the GPS signal due to the fact that if they decide to stop trading with the US then everyone in the middle of America starves as the lights go out.

      --
      --------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."
    2. Re:GPS Misconceptions by calidoscope · · Score: 1
      First off, it's original purpose (since the early '70s) has been to provide mid-course correction to submarine launched ballistic missiles. No matter how good the inertial tracking systems in a boomer, they still don't have an accurate enough idea of where they are located at launch.

      Methinks you're mixing up GPS with Transit. Transit was used to provide accurate position fixes to the boomers to allow updating the SINS.

      There are several reasons that I doubt the mid-course correction scenario. The most important is that folks involved with ballistic missile guidance do not like relying on radio guidance due to problems of jamming and denial of service (the EMP's from a few well placed nukes could take out the system). The flip side of that argument is that the USN has decided on astro-inertial navigation - using guide stars for mid-course correction - the guide stars are difficult to jam and impossible to take out.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  188. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As a citizen of the US, I absolutely DO NOT want a third party to be able to accurately aim a missile at the White House, the Capitol, or a nuclear power plant."

    I think that dropping a bomb on the Whitehouse would be a splendid thing to do. Goodbye Bush you twat

  189. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by calidoscope · · Score: 1
    By the time of the moon shot the original von Braun people who did the V2 had mostly been replaced with Brits.

    Say what!?

    I knew quite a few people who worked on the Apollo program and the impression I got was the expertise was primarily American.

    As for who developed the technology - some critical areas were:
    Control systems theory: Bell Labs
    Gimballing rocket motors: Rocketdyne
    LH2 handling: AEC and Lockheed Skunk Works
    LH2 engines: Pratt & Whitney, Rocketdyne
    F1 engines: Rocketdyne

    And don't forget that von Braun and crew learned a lot about liquid fueled rocket design from Goddard.

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  190. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by calidoscope · · Score: 1
    Creating and testing nuclear weapons has proven far more difficult that making effective rockets.

    Then why were the first nuclear weapons available in 1945 and the first ICBM's didn't become operational until 1960? Hmmm?

    Short range missiles are another story - especially satellite nav equipped cruise missiles. Getting accurate inertial navigations systems is a lot more difficult than building a nuclear weapon.

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  191. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Missles, missles, missles, MISSILES, always missles.

    This isn't directed at you or even your post. It's just a scream. Bush and Reagan, the neocons, always obsessed with missle attacks, because they never think for even a few seconds. There's so much money in building a missles "shield", and so much inbred fear of missles in U.S. citizens, that we can't think properly.

    WHY a missle to deliver a nuclear bomb? Use a cruise missle instead. OR, a commuter aircraft for an airburst. Or put it on a freight train. Or a container on a cargo freighter. Or just move it around in a U-Haul. Or just have a couple dozen in subbasements of the consular offices of the [fill in feared country of your choice here], ready to detonate at any time. There could be a nuke in the Russian embassy in Washington DC, disguised as a samovar.

    I don't imagine missles hitting us; I never did, even in the terrorized commie-hystera of Reagan's era. NO COUNTRY IS GOING TO FIRE A MISSLE AT THE U.S.. Get over this insanity. No one is going to insure their nation's immediate suicide! Russia isn't going to kill itself. CHINA IS NOT GOING TO FIRE A MISSLE AT THE U.S. They are doing just fine, have no impulse to eliminate their civilization by frying Los Angeles. NO, THEY ARE NOT MADMEN, EVEN IF THEY ARE COMMUNISTS. They never were!

    We have lived in a continuous state of hysteria since the forties. We've sapped our GDP by funding this imaginary war for decades. A lot of people are richer for it, of course.

    The only real danger of a nuclear attack has been from extra-national agencies such as Al Qaeda; but they, no matter how fearful we are of them, aren't that interested in causing the nuclear annihilation of Islamic nations, which Bush and the U.S. would certainly cause if such an attack was launched. There's no strategic reason for such an attack. 9-11 was about provoking us into doing something stupid, which we of course did, as predicted. But a nuke? Why?

    There should be a name for this syndrome. A belief that everyone else in the world is suicidally insane and incomprehensible.

  192. Pseudolites by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1
    Well, they would probably grumble a little, then get to work on a way to figure out a way around it, just as they have been doing for decades.

    Already done. If/when the enemy jams GPS, the US is prepared with "pseudolites" (transmitter-equipped aircraft, aerostats, ground stations, etc.)to cover the areas where the opposition is trying to deny GPS coverage.

  193. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Imagine Washington, New York and LA being hit by nuclear missiles.


    OK, imagining.... Oh, oooohh, oooooohhhhh.

    I just came in my pants.

  194. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Forbman · · Score: 1

    Funny how immigration works, then. It's OK to emigrate to the US. The US will most likely let you in. A caucasian american emigrating to Saudi Arabia? India? Sudan? Japan? Not too likely. Lots of things in the way.

    Even "emigrating" to Canada has a lot of problems. Until you get Canadian citizenship (and thus, give up your US citizenship. The reverse doesn't happen, though!), you're wages are taxed heavily by Canada, the IRS also taxes you at the top tax bracket, and you're probably getting paid in $CDN to boot.

  195. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    von Braun designed the Saturn 5's main engines.

  196. Re:150,000 jobs? Doing what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2.1 billion euros divided by 150,000 people doesn't work out to very much money per person, even if you pretend 100 percent of the total will be paychecks, not parts, real estate, insurance, etc.

  197. Well..... Ya by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Much as I'd expect a country the US was at war with to try and jam/disable/shoot down GPS. They did try in Iraq, they setup little GPS jammers. Didn't work, but they did try.

    I also think the concern may be the misleading development of it. The US GPS is a military project, of that there is no question at all. It was developed by the government for the military, was originally only available to the military, and the highest resolutions are still military only. Europe seems here to be claiming that Galileo is civilian only, but then some countries want it for military use and they are saying "Ok, that's cool."

    Also I think you are a little confused about the "right to shoot it down". It's not that the US is saying that it'll shoot down the satalites as they are launched, they are saying that this makes it a potential target in a war. Purely civilian things aren't targets, all other concerns aside, it's a waste of muntitions to hit something that doesn't have a military use. However dual use systems are a valid target.

    Likewise, if the US went to war with the EU, I would fully expect them to try and take out GPS, if they could. Never mind that it would disrupt commercial traffic, not their problem, it would be used to guide military aircraft and bombs, and thus be a target of intrest.

    However the military use of GPS is it's primary stated purpose, civilian use only being receantly allowed. Galileo seems to be stated for civilian use only, but they are willing to turn a blind eye to military use.

  198. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by joss · · Score: 1

    Is there a point in there ?

    --
    http://rareformnewmedia.com/
  199. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

    We would certainly react and we certainly would expect a reaction from China were we to block their access to GPS. It's the nature of war, for God's sake!

  200. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by tbradshaw · · Score: 1

    I really wish you were wrong... but you're almost completely right.

    Economists that aren't completely in political pockets agree, it's not a matter of "if" the US currency charade is going to fail, it's a matter of when.

  201. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by boule75 · · Score: 1

    Just another ignoramus anti-EU Brit? Certainly. The decision is taken by the _elected_ governments, including the British one, and not by "bureacrats".

    And France is not, by far, the main promoter of the project, even if it has interests in it. Thanks to a not-so-stupidly-ultra-liberal policy, France manages to retain industries on its soil when Britain capitalises on "finance": French companies are major actors in both consortiums competing for the project, eventhough the financial gains will be more evenhandedly shared among EU members.

    I found some data in French about the repartitions of shares in the consiortium. It is not dated unfortunately, and even maybe outdated because I cannot see anything about China, Israel or Morroco there.
    "La repartition de ces gains entre les 15 pays de l'ASE a ete fixee a 17,31% chacun pour la France, l'Allemagne, l'Italie et le Royaume-Uni ; 10,14% pour l'Espagne ; 4,79% pour la Belgique ; 3,54% pour la Suisse ; 3,07% pour les Pays-Bas et 2,33% pour la Suede, pour ne citer qu'eux."

    --
    I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
  202. Flaw, Not a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What everyone seems to implicitly assume is that not being able to turn the system off is a GOOD thing. That is not neccesarily so. The hard part about building a missile isn't the rocketry or the payload, it's getting the damn thing to go where you want it. Any guidance system you build for your use CAN be used by the enemy you are fighting. Lacking some way to prevent that, the whole system is a giant liability. Do you really think that if somebody was dropping missiles on european cities that the EU wouldn't shoot the damn things down themselves?

  203. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    It's about 3 years until the U.S.'s intentional devaluation of the dollar and our need to borrow from the EU and China throws the U.S. into a depression, dragging everyone down with it.

    An unstable U.S. with 100,000 nuclear, sorry, nukular, weapons is a very bad thing indeed.

  204. Re:Global Tracking by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

    "It did work, but several methods have been found to reduce the effect SA had to the point where it was no longer relevant."

    It's called "differential tracking". A GPS receiver is sited as near as possible to the target, and it is linked to a RF transmitter by which it broadcasts its GPS reported position. The receiving system, knowing the exact location of the fixed receiver, cues the guidance system with the offset data. It's perfect, It's simple, It works.

    Given this data, it should be rather evident that :

    1.There is really no need for a third (russian glonass is operational) system for precise 3d location, either civvy or military;

    2. The US military cannot, even by turning off completely the GPS system, avoid homeland menace. Any sucker could have gone on top of the twin towers with a homing beacon;

    The European system underestimates costs, and completely overestimates demand. Simply populating mobile phone trasmitters with GPS receivers would allow cell phone service providers, at modest cost to themselves, to sell additional precision to people via their cell phones. If they do not do so, it means that the demand simply is not there.

    this whole system is a gigantic subsidy to European domestic production, since, for the points stated above, I do not see Asian electronic producers fall over themselves in trying to produce receivers for a third comer whose domestic market will be dominated by goverment demand (military mostly), and apportioned to domestic producers accordingly.

    --
    "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
  205. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by AndyL · · Score: 1

    If China had a sense of humor they'd put their flag right next to the American one ... only slightly higher.

  206. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a name for your syndrome ... it's call stupidity.

  207. Since when has 1984 ever been off topic.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    I ask ya!

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  208. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by tengwar · · Score: 1

    Not that I'm doubting you, but can you point me to a source for that?
    Ta.

  209. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by thisgooroo · · Score: 1
    Even "emigrating" to Canada has a lot of problems.

    compared to population size, canada lets more people in than the US

    Until you get Canadian citizenship (and thus, give up your US citizenship.

    you dont't have to give any old citizenship to get the canadian citizenship. if your old country strips you of your citizenship when you take another one, it's not canada's problem

    The reverse doesn't happen, though!), you're wages are taxed heavily by Canada, the IRS also taxes you at the top tax bracket,

    many countries have treaties to prevent double taxation. afaik, there is one between canada and the US

    and you're probably getting paid in $CDN to boot.

    if trends continue, you might be glad ;-)

  210. your facts are wrong by jeif1k · · Score: 1

    Did you know the USA gives more in the way of (government & non-government) aid to other countries than ALL other countries combined?

    Your numbers are wrong. Even in terms of absolute dollars, the US had moved to first place in recent years because of a strong dollar, but even then it has given less than Japan and France together. With the weak dollar, it will probably lose that position altogether.

    But absolute dollars don't matter, what matters is amount of money given relative to population size or GNP, and on both measures, the US is stingy. Furthermore, much of the US "aid" is actually political pay-offs or military aid, tied to US purchases, and is really just a subsidy in disguise.

    is the number of people who believe the world is a totally safe place, and if it isn't so, then America must have made it that way.

    Quite to the contrary: Europeans know first hand that the world is a dangerous place. The US population only seems to have woken up to this uncomfortable fact on 9/11 and still seems to have trouble dealing with it. If every nation started wars when there was a terrorist attack on its soil, civilization would have ended long ago.

    The problem is that the US thinks it can make the world safe for its citizens, and that the US government doesn't give a damn what it is doing to other nations in the process.

  211. Re:Global Tracking by thogard · · Score: 1

    When they turned it off, there were 6 sats in the existing constellation that couldn't do SA properly. Sometime in 2001 all new sats didn't even have the SA module installed since it was a big heavy bit of gear. Its one of the reasons they looked into regional jamming early on. An f4 wild weasel could jam GPS in a local area a decade ago as can AWACS and I'm willing to bet that the AWACS can also jam the others already. The USAF depends on GPS way to much to reintroduce SA and the regional jamming works very well.

  212. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by lightknight · · Score: 1

    "Actually, a 1 megaton blast will only vaporize things out to about .6 miles, and the "completely flattened buildings" radius only goes to about 1.7 miles. A couple of miles is a MISS for a hardened target."

    Thank you. Someone understands nuclear blasts.

    "This is all moot, though, because ICBMs don't use GPS for guidance."

    Equally true.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  213. Re:Europe really needs to break the reliance on U. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry, frog. i'm not going to kiss you to turn you into my princess. i'm a software engineer. i have no time for a girl

    you left out the punch-line "but a talking frog is pretty cool".

  214. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by lightknight · · Score: 1

    No, I'm not a troll. But Chinese tech is far behind standard US tech. We've gone from making bigger bombs to smaller, more precise ones.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  215. Maybe you have no clue? by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    1. If you think that one Rumsfeld comment was the only thing aggravating Europeans, you should switch your news source. That was just a small part of the tip of that iceberg.

    2. You may also consider shifting your history supplier. Russia was actually allied with the Nazis during the first 2 years of WW2.

  216. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should we, the US, be forced put other nation's interests above our own?

    You either do that or get killed. I don't mind, it's YOUR choice.

  217. Russia by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Let me run some names past you and see if you get it: Kursk, Stalingrad, Moscow, Kharkov, Kiev. In each of those places and countless others Russia lost more men and continued fighting the Nazis than France did prior to its surrender.

    The Soviet alliance with the Nazis at the beginning of the war, a temporary affair by any historical record, is completely forgiven by the twenty million russian men and women that died fighting the Nazis during World War II. In nearly every unit of military measure the Russians bore the greatest brunt and made the deepest sacrifices in fighting the Nazis.

    At the end of the day, the Russians were with the US fighting the Nazis, and the French were not. The French may have a heritage of liberty, but, the Russians, because of their sacrifices and courage, their scientific achievement, offer the potential to be a better ally and better friend than any western european power.

    The point that I am trying to make, is that, having fought the cold war with the russians we as Americans learned a lot about them and in many ways have come to love them. While western Europe is barely capable of American respect (with the notable exception of the UK), the Russians have earned American respect in spades. Given that the United States and Russia were able to be fairly effective allies in World War II, one has to think, as an American, if Russia is the place for the Americans to make true alliances with, rather than the French and Germans.

    --
    This is my sig.
  218. Rumsfeld by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Actually, in all seriousness, why should the United States want to even be allied to France and Germany? Russia has proven herself as repeatedly clever, tough, and capable over the last 60 years. What have the French proven? Or the Germans? Russia has a huge landmass, a large and bright population, a stupendous record of military and scientific achievement despite extreme poverty. I'd say the Russians have it all over the Europeans. If we in the USA have to be allied to anybody overseas, I'd say we should hop into bed with the Russians. Scrap NATO, let's have US + Russia!

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Rumsfeld by Gorimek · · Score: 1

      The only reason to team up with Grance and Germany over Russia would be to support freedom and democracy rather than whatever you'd call the nasty imperial dictatorship that's brewing in Russia.

      It sounds like that doesn't matter to you, but I actually think it does even to the current US administration, despite all it's nasty faults.

      As for WW2, the fact that Russia is about 50 times bigger than France is mostly what made their conquest go on different time scales. Also, while the Nazis respected the French as a fellow civilized people, their stated goal for the slavs was at best to enslave them while their lands were turned into German colonies. Surrender isn't much of an option when facing such an opponent.

    2. Re:Rumsfeld by krist0 · · Score: 1

      you should also remember that the Russians did a pretty good job at trying to wipe out the Jews as wel. Many Jews were fleeing Russia, making it to Poland/Hungary/etc only to be met by the Nazis. Russia wasn't being all ideological fighting the Nazis, the Nazis invaded them. Simple. There was nothing noble in it.

      --
      all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
    3. Re:Rumsfeld by tjstork · · Score: 1

      France and Germany are arguing that democracy is not for everyone, that a nation's sovereign rights preclude the introduction of a democracy. So let's agree with them and hop into bed with Russia.

      There was never going to be a notion of a surrender or a settlement with Russia. That's just not the way that Stalin operated. Having made one deal with Hitler and had it broken, there was no way he would even contemplate making another one.

      --
      This is my sig.
    4. Re:Rumsfeld by Gorimek · · Score: 1

      France and Germany are arguing that democracy is not for everyone, that a nation's sovereign rights preclude the introduction of a democracy.

      Seriously dude, you need to get some better news sources. That's a bizarre distortion of their actual positions.

  219. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by Jameth · · Score: 1

    I just used the CIA factbook for those. It's not perfect accuracy, but it's usually fairly good.

    http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

    If you doubt that...

    Japan:
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/m i_m2633/is _6_14/ai_68145870

    All European:
    http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri= tcm:29-1179 97-16&type=News
    (In 2003, Spain=50%, Germany=64%, Italy=106%, France=63%, UK=39%)

    Canadian Debt Clock:
    http://www.ndir.com/SI/education/debt.shtm l
    (I'm not checking the math on it, but I already know Canada has a debt problem, there are many articles on it, but none seemed to state the exact percent)

    Sorry, no info handy on Russia.

  220. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually I thought the launcher team was dominated by Von Braun's Germans, and it was the Apollo spacecraft team that was if not dominated had a very high percentage of ex-Avro Arrow Canadian and British engineers.

    Yes, the Americans supplied the money :-)

  221. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by killjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    According to Bin Laden the 9-11 attack was an attack on our economy. He has stated that his intention is to bankrupt the US not to kill every american or even a bunch of them.

    That's why he attacked the world trade center.

    So far it's been pretty effective. He spent maybe a 100,000 and the US spent 200 billion and virtually all of it was borrowed money. He also caused uncounted amount of economic loss to US industry.

    the ripple effects of his attack are not over yet. The current deficit is already causing the dollar to drop and the interest rates to rise.

    Expect an attack every five to ten years of similar magnitude until they reach their goal.

    --
    evil is as evil does
  222. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by killjoe · · Score: 1

    "Starwars (and missile defence) are so last century."

    even nukes are so last century. It's so much easier and cheaper to wage chemical and biological warfare.

    For example a terrorist could travel from canada to mexico and randomly inject cows with mad cow disease or foot and mouth disease and destroy the beef economy. A terrorist could poison the water supply of a medium size city in the midwest and cause panic all over the country. A terrorist can take out three or four bridges across the missipi and cause billions of dollars of damage. A terrorist can knock out two cranes in the los angeles port and cause a disaster for anybody who sells imported products.

    No need for nukes. A little enginuity, a few buck, some fertilizer and boom lots bang for the buck.

    --
    evil is as evil does
  223. EGNOS and WAAS by rexneville · · Score: 1

    I read somewhere on an ESA web site that the EGNOS and WAAS signals were compatible, so a GPS receiver that uses WAAS in the U.S could use EGNOS signals when in Europe?

  224. Re:10 percent unemployment in the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Now, as is already starting to happen, when the world starts to shift to oil priced in Euros instead of dollars, then demand for the dollar will plummet and it's value will take a dive... and there's nothing the US can do about it."

    My you're naive.

    What do you think the invasion of Iraq was about? Iraq was the first nation to trade oil in Euros instead of dollars, and with the slide in the dollar was doing very nicely out of it.

    And why do you think Iran is on the Axis of Evil? It's the second nation to trade oil in euros.

    What else do you think that vast US military is going to be used for? Who do you reckon is going to be game to break ranks now?

    "Shoot one, educate a thousand" - Stalin

  225. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by calidoscope · · Score: 1

    My understanding was that von Braun may have assisted in the design of the F1 engines - but the grunt work was done by Rocketdyne.

    --
    A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
  226. That's the American view by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    When the context is international law and war, talking about rights doesn't get you far, because not much is based on them in this area.


    Funny how I only ever hear that kind of thinking from Americans. If it was a universal truth about international relations, you'd expect it to be heard, well, internationally.

  227. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by wwwillem · · Score: 1
    We've gone from making bigger bombs to smaller, more precise ones.

    Mmmm, let's take Iraq as an example. Looking at the number of killed US soldiers, vs the number of killed Iraqi soldiers, it seems that the Iraqi weapons were way more precise :-). Seriously, I don't buy that "precise bombing" of the US army. How many Iraqi's were killed in Felluja?

    There goes my karma down the drain .....

    --
    Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
  228. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
    Just another ignoramus anti-EU Brit?
    That's an ad hominem. Only assholes use those.
    Thanks to a not-so-stupidly-ultra-liberal policy, France manages to retain industries on its soil
    There appears to be a flaw with your browser. When you type "flagrant disregard for EU competition law" it appears as "not-so-stupidly-ultra-liberal policy". Oh, and who tried to screw up the Eurofighter project?

    I suppose the CAP isn't a rip-off either?

    "La repartition de ces gains entre les 15 pays de l'ASE a ete fixee a 17,31% chacun pour la France, l'Allemagne, l'Italie et le Royaume-Uni ;
    If you believe that what the EU says has any relevance to what it does, then you're the ignaramus.
    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  229. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by boule75 · · Score: 1
    That _was_ a kind of ad hominem and please forgive me (and congratulation to have answered with another! Now the circle is broken:-), but it is very anoying to repeat over and over the same things to people who apparently make voluntary mistakes in order to proove their point. And what you said was simply false.

    The decisions about Galileo were agreed between the (science?) ministers of all EU countries assembled in the ad hoc Council of Ministers (yours included probably), and not by the EU Commission-of-bureaucrats.

    As for your other points:
    - I do not believe that a country can honestly maintain its independence without its proper agriculture and industry, and it is a pity that Britain's is fading.
    - you certainly know that France respects EU competition rules better than other EU rules... As for some "competition" rules, you'll pardon me if I deem them "stupid": I am not at all pleased when I see private nuclear power plants in the UK, considering the state of your railways. And is your electricity cheaper than in France? "Free markets everywhere" has become a dogma. I hate most of those.
    - the Eurofighter project? Dassault was certainly very arrogant and this is a shame. But the Rafale program seems much more successfull to me (cheaper, ready for a long time, much nicer and it flies well...). It is a collective failure and we are all paying the price (X22...).
    - CAP a "rip-off"? I do not really understand your word there, but at least we are not dependent upon anybody for what we eat as we were after WWII, and that's a great strategic success.
    - your last point: who do you believe? How do you make up your mind? Based on whose data? Do you trust corporate data more than state or EU data? I do not.

    Galileo derives from the states will and will be privately built: does this satisfy you, or are states definitely evil?

    --
    I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
  230. Re:GPS (among other) Misconceptions by Maow · · Score: 0
    For the most part, your post was informative +1, but one thing needs rebuttal:

    EU countries' proclivity to sell any military technology to anybody

    Yeah. EU sells anything to anyone, unlike everyone else, right?

    Has anyone sold more weapons to more despotic dictators than USA? Anyone?

    Oh well, it does tend to be humourous when those weapons get turned back on America.

  231. Re:would USA rely on French, or Estonian GPS syste by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

    Or better yet, take the American one off the flagpole, put a Chinese one in its place, and athen duct tape the american one underneath.