Slashdot Mirror


How GPS Is Killing Lighthouses

sakshale writes "Spiegel Online has an article about the impact of GPS systems on Lighthouses. They claim that the popularity of the satellite-based global positioning system has led to the closure of lighthouses along the German coast." As the article says, "critics question whether the new system is reliable and safe enough to warrant the closure of these historical beacons of safety."

509 comments

  1. In Other News by hjtamvla9Xbp · · Score: 5, Funny

    How e-mail is killing the sales of postage stamps.

    --
    "There is no spoon."
    1. Re:In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't forget how the invention of traffic lights has put thousands of traffic cops out of work.

    2. Re:In Other News by Jonboy+X · · Score: 0

      Also, how light bulbs are killing off gas lamps.

      --

      "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    3. Re:In Other News by Living+WTF · · Score: 1

      How e-mail is killing the sales of postage stamps.

      What? Is it priceless to send parcels full of viagra and other stuff avertiesed via email?
      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
    4. Re:In Other News by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

      ...and how simple digital media creation and transfer is killing the outmoded middleman in the music industry.

      And how DVRs are destroying all corporations using the obsolete free-broadcast-with-pushed-advertising model because now people can skip the commercials! ...Or not.

      How soon do you suppose the Lighthouse Industry Association of America will file suit and begin lobbying the guvmint to legislatively protect their obsolete business model?

      --
      I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
    5. Re:In Other News by krem81 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nice to know you're still with us, Monsieur Bastiat.

    6. Re:In Other News by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      How e-mail is killing the sales of postage stamps.

      It is, actually. When was the last time you mailed a letter?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:In Other News by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Is spam killing junk mail?

    8. Re:In Other News by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately not. Junk mail is worse, too, since there is no way to automatically filter it.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    9. Re:In Other News by atrus · · Score: 1

      But, package mail is growing. Virtual is nice, but sometimes you have to have real.

    10. Re:In Other News by elambi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How much do you like getting one of those email greeting cards? It's a really big thrill isn't it?

      --
      Sig, we don't need no stinking Sig!
    11. Re:In Other News by Chrax · · Score: 1

      That's the point. Improved technology should be expected to supercede old technology.

    12. Re:In Other News by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Who cares?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    13. Re:In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more mail is sent today than 5 years ago.

    14. Re:In Other News by penguinstorm · · Score: 1

      Does this still count as news? It's been happening in North America for a long time now.

      --
      Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
    15. Re:In Other News by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Earlier today and it also included a money order for something I bought from eBay.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    16. Re:In Other News by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Exactly. I send out Christmas cards every year precisely because its a pain in the ass to use physical mail. Sending someone an email takes about two seconds to put them on the list if you have their address, maybe a minute to Google them if you don't. It doesn't exactly bowl you over when someone spent two seconds putting you on a mailing list of 300.

      I go through the commotion of getting my envelopes, figuring out postage, signing all the cards, and I make my own cards (you can print on Bristol board, heavy drawing paper or cardstock using a conventional inkjet) which can take a while. This occupies a significant portion of my Christmas vacation but I figure it's worth it. Printing an email and hanging it on the fridge just isn't the same.

    17. Re:In Other News by KinkifyTheNation · · Score: 1

      The population is bigger than it was 5 years ago.

    18. Re:In Other News by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the proliferation of portable timepieces has made the town crier obsolete.

      In next week's show, we'll examine the up-and-coming technology called the "horseless carriage". In summary, our technical correspondent says "No horse. Doesn't use reigns. Lame."

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    19. Re:In Other News by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      I'm still upset about the buggy whip manufacturers.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    20. Re:In Other News by Fred_A · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's all those damn pirates downloading lighthouses for free off the intarweb that hurt the business. The business model is fine.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    21. Re:In Other News by Anarchofascist · · Score: 1

      ..and how the rise of the motorcar is devastating sales of sulkies.

      Here in Ireland, they introduced a smoking ban in enclosed public places, including pubs. The local television news service tried desperately to find people that were disadvantaged by the ban (smokers can still smoke, they just have to go outside) and focussed their attention on the men who fill the cigarette machines. They were going to be put out of a job, poor things!

      Every new tech has winners and losers. Get over it.

      --
      Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
    22. Re:In Other News by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      I sent a telegram to my wife last week, and before that, I sent a traditional snail letter... instead of the usual email/sms. (I work away from her, seeing her only in the weekends)

      sure, it costs money.... but emotions that sparked the sex i got afterwards was worth every penny...

      When it comes to women, they sure love their letters delivered by the postie.. and the telegram also had a nice effect...

      --
      Have a nice day!
    23. Re:In Other News by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Well they kind of are. If you think of Lighthouses as location devices and GPSs as downloading location data from a web of satalites.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    24. Re:In Other News by Tassach · · Score: 1
      People don't die because email goes down.

      Even with GPS, lighthouses are still vital to maritime safety. Your GPS reciever can go tits-up, but as long as someone on the boat has one good eye, you can see the lighthouse.

      Yes, maintaining a lighthouse network is expensive, but it's cheaper than cleaning up the mess you'd get if a supertanker ran aground.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    25. Re:In Other News by Tassach · · Score: 1

      A letter is more than words on a page. It's a physical thing. Sometimes, just having the words is enough; other times, you need the actual physical item (EG, a signed contract or a Christmas card, to give two examples).

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    26. Re:In Other News by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In summary, our correspondent should really know how to spell "rein" before trying to make this joke. Why must people insist on using words they don't know how to spell?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:In Other News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Martha? Is that you?

    28. Re:In Other News by nacturation · · Score: 1

      True... neither should our correspondent post late at night when he's tired. At least I didn't spell it "rain". :)

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    29. Re:In Other News by Vombatus · · Score: 2, Funny
      but as long as someone on the boat has one good eye

      Arrrrr, ye insensitive clod... Why ye think I am wearing this eyepatch?

      Keelhauling is too good for you

      --
      This sig is intentionally blank
  2. By falling out of the sky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With precision equal to about 3 meters!

    1. Re:By falling out of the sky! by nate+nice · · Score: 2, Interesting

      3 meters? Are you kidding me? I did survey last summer and we used GPS. With a triangulated system we could be accurate to withen 1/100 of a 10th. That's apx. 1 mm! And trust me, we had to be sometimes. GPS is great stuff. Finally math books can spew out real world examples of geometry (mainly trig, subset of geometry anyways) that the students might use one day.

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    2. Re:By falling out of the sky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am assuming this was a professional survey grade GPS unit?

    3. Re:By falling out of the sky! by Dirtside · · Score: 0
      Finally math books can spew out real world examples of geometry (mainly trig, subset of geometry anyways) that the students might use one day.


      Yeah, because before GPS, nobody ever used math in the real world. Engineers? Scientists? People in any financial or business context? People doing their taxes? None of them used math?
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    4. Re:By falling out of the sky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Surveyors can let a GPS "integrate" and use other techniques that don't work on a moving boat.

      Also in many parts of the world knowing your exact possition to within meters is not as good as it sound because the charts are not so good. For example if the big rock is charted 1/2 mile ast of where it really is. This is common. Radars and lighthouses will still be needed for a long time.

      Every book and navigation class will tell you to NEVER depend on only one source of navigation data. Always use at least two and cross check.

      I typically use simple techniques from the pre-electronic era to comfirm the GPS. I've punch ed in a wrong number on the GPS and would have gone off in a totally wrong direction

    5. Re:By falling out of the sky! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Even if so, it is far more accurate than navigation via lighthouse.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:By falling out of the sky! by maotx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Was that using Standard Positioning Service (SPS) or Precise Positioning Service (PPS)? The SPS is used by both military and civilian. Anyone who can purchase a $100 receiver can use it to detect their location within an accuracy of 100 meters (95 percent) horizontally and 156 meters (95 percent) vertically.

      The PPS is used by the military and users authorized by the U.S. P(Y) code. Not anyone can use this one. It provides provides a predictable positioning accuracy of at least 22 meters (95 percent) horizontally and 27.7 meters vertically. Not to mention that most PPS GPS devices are hard to come by. PPS is typically used in military, aviation, and marine usage.
      The only way I can figure you got ~1mm accuracy is if you used a ground station as a known point of reference to correct the skew. Either that or your triangulation is wrong ;)
      GPS also uses, I believe, up to twelve satellites at a time to improve accuracy. Very rarely do they only use three satellites to obtain its coordinates.

      Link

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    7. Re:By falling out of the sky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please elaborate on how you did this. Because results like this are practically unheard of.

      What ephemeredes were you using (an what models did they use)? How many states was your kalman filter? What antenna technology were you using? What were you multipath correction algorithms? How long were you collects? Any DGPS source? What were your atmospherics? What about you clock drift corrections?

      Was this a static or dynamic location?

      Even if you know the position of you ground station down to that level, it is nearly impossible to converge a solution using any GPS source using traditional filtering techniques (that is unless you weight the known position to 100% I mean, changes of the antenna temperature and the density of the troposphere due to humidity can cause errors of a centimeter.

      Please elaborate. If you can tell us how you did this, you'll have a wonderful, cushy job at the IGS (http://igscb.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html) for the rest of your life...

    8. Re:By falling out of the sky! by nate+nice · · Score: 1

      It was a GPS system made by Trimble. The 5800 model I believe. But yes, you are correct on how it is used. First we set up on a control spot we know the exact coordinates to. Our system we use to gather data then uses radio link to communicate with it and the satelites. We use something like 8 satelites, the more the better, as well like you guessed. So what happens is what you think also, with the known position, the position we get from the GPS is then error corrected to be precise. Depending on the kind of plot you're doing you have to hold the rod longer to get a really precise reading.

      It was really beautiful to plot the points of this pipeline and then upload the data into a CAD program that would generate the pipe we just shot.

      As for the person above who made a comment about not trusting one source, you're right. The main guy I was with had a map upside down when he took a quick reading and basically had everything messed up. Turns out we cut down a few of some guys trees. Needless to say he wasn't too happy. I thought it was hilarious.

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    9. Re:By falling out of the sky! by nate+nice · · Score: 1

      I guess I worded that rather poorly. I was talking more on a highschool level. You know how they are always trying to show a real world example to keep interested. Also, it was a joke.

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    10. Re:By falling out of the sky! by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      The only way I can figure you got ~1mm accuracy is if you used a ground station as a known point of reference to correct the skew.

      Bingo. If you're anywhere near a Coast Guard beacon station (which is to say most of the continental U.S. and outlying waters), you can simply use a unit that supports DGPS and still get 5 meter horizontal resolution on a really bad day, although 1-2 meter resolution is more likely for real-time performance. I would imagine that the almost all of the GPS units used by survey crews are integrating DGPS units, and if given enough time to collect data I have no doubt they could be accurate to within a very few millimeters.

      I've got a DGPS-capable Garmin, but haven't really seen the need to fork over the $500 or so that they want for the external DGPS antenna.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    11. Re:By falling out of the sky! by NormalVisual · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not if the location of the lighthouse is off a bit, and the location of the big-ass underwater rock was mapped relative to the lighthouse. :-)

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    12. Re:By falling out of the sky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God Damnit, One of you fuckers needs to mod this the previous comment up!!!! this guy speaks the truth.... Get a job with NASA if you know the answer...

    13. Re:By falling out of the sky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with the best DGPS source, the most advanced GPS receiver and a collection period approaching infinity it is impossible to get millimeter solutions with the current implementation of the GPS constellation. I could give you a proof, but it is too late and I don't have enough room in the margin :-)

      There are too many variables that go into figuring out position that are nearly impossible to model at the level of fidelity required to produce a millimeter accurate solution with a Kalman filter.

      Off the top of my head:
      -Troposheric conditions
      -Ionospheric conditions
      -Higher order clock drift
      -Earth/Moon Solid Tide models
      -Imprecise solar force models
      -A relatively poor geo datum (WGS84/EGM96)
      -Signal Multipath
      -Crudely modeled EOP (Earth Orientation)

      All of these errors add up way more than the solution of millimeter. (Try to lock down your Qs with those running around your filter.)

      Hell, even over a long enough period of time, plate tectonics will move the position of your ground station by more than a couple millimeters.

      Using codeless tracking, you can get decent solutions, but no where near the 1mm you think is possible. Don't even get me started on the limitations of the space segment.

      Let's not set false expectations for this system.

    14. Re:By falling out of the sky! by Dzerzhinski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. My dad is a sailor/shipwright, and I remember an example he gave me when commercial GPS was still really new. His ship was docked when he happened to check the GPS (I think he was in either Sydney or Christchurch NZ). The GPS showed the boat was sitting on land in the middle of one of the big streets that ran beside the pier, a few hundred meters from the actual location. The GPS turned out to be far more accurate than the charts. This is getting to be less and less of a problem as cartographers use GPS to update their maps, and admittedly the error was still small enough that it wouldn't be a problem in most situations. But, again, your GPS is only as good as its maps, and cartographers are only human. Also, my dad later ran a marine electronics shop in Seattle. That's a whole other can of beans. After helping my dad try to fix GPS/radar/other navigation systems and seeing just how screwed up they can get, I would highly recommend that all aspiring sailors learn how to use the sextants in their emergency kits.

      --
      Never trust a physicist further than his DeBroglie wavelength.
    15. Re:By falling out of the sky! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I would highly recommend that all aspiring sailors learn how to use the sextants in their emergency kits.

      Reminds me of a story about someone copmparing the accuracy of a sextant and GPS. The first night, it was overcast, so there were no stars. The same on the second. The third night, he managed to get a very accurate position, but this did require he knew what the time was. He got this from GPS.

    16. Re:By falling out of the sky! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      If you're using pure GPS (no ground station), then 3M is probably about as good as you can depend on -- and even that depends on the US military being in a good mood.

      Try doing a pure GPS measurement the next time they declare an orange alert. I wouldn't be surprised if it was off by 10s of metres. Probably the same situation if you're in the vicinity of Iraq (or any other 'hot' zone).
      I know that the US has promised to not mess with the civilian system any more, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that you're on the limits of the error allowance in delicate locations/times.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    17. Re:By falling out of the sky! by Dzerzhinski · · Score: 1

      As a former astronomy major who did a research project on a 30" scope, I know the feeling. : ) Didn't they make a sextant to navigate by on the Apollo 13? I seem to remember something like that from the movie. The principle, at least, seems useful for navigation by space probes. Actually one of the indispensible tools in the observatory was the GPS. The time signal was used to calibrate the equatorial mounting.

      --
      Never trust a physicist further than his DeBroglie wavelength.
    18. Re:By falling out of the sky! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry but not everyone can use dgps.

      get real, you did NOT use a regular gps, you used a system that had a dedicated reciever that was set on a known coordinate accurately and it transmitted a correction signal to the other gear.

      maybe if you would have revealed that fact people would be more inclined to believe you.

      everyone else that has touched a GPS started screaming that you were full of crap the second you his the post button.

    19. Re:By falling out of the sky! by nate+nice · · Score: 1

      "Hell, even over a long enough period of time, plate tectonics will move the position of your ground station by more than a couple millimeters."

      That's an interesting comment and something I asked the civil engineers about. A funny thing is if a plate does shift a bit, where ever the national geological survey markers remain are the official spots for them still. Go figure.

      But, the residual was accurate to withen 3 decimal places of a 10th which is 1000th of a tenth. So OK, maybe it's a centieter.

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  3. Run by US Gov't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't GPS run by the United States government? Are other countries sure it's a good idea to be relying on that?

    1. Re:Run by US Gov't? by slutsker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, they rely on the US for everything else, so why not this?

    2. Re:Run by US Gov't? by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      Would Jesus have relied on GPS?

    3. Re:Run by US Gov't? by glib909 · · Score: 1
      Are other countries sure it's a good idea to be relying on that?

      As long as they're wearing tin-based cranial faraday protection units while operating GPS devices. Then they'll be fine.

      --
      Suudsu, that stuff is G-E-W-D.
    4. Re:Run by US Gov't? by magarity · · Score: 1, Funny

      Would Jesus have relied on GPS?

      No way.

      He got lost in the desert on purpose.

    5. Re:Run by US Gov't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should always keep some older technology around incase the new fails.

    6. Re:Run by US Gov't? by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      jesus went geocaching

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    7. Re:Run by US Gov't? by SteveXE · · Score: 1

      Yes it is, so you have to wonder what kinda tricks they have built into the system that they could enabled to do all sorts of crazy stuff to non ally millitary receivers.

    8. Re:Run by US Gov't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Bush is running it, you goddamned terrorists better not rely on it! He will cut you off along with everyone else. Legitimate Boats and Jets, etc be Damned!

    9. Re:Run by US Gov't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wasn't the entire European Theater run by the United States government? Are other countries sure it's a good idea to be relying on that?

      Must we always forget the eastern front?

    10. Re:Run by US Gov't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homeland Security, here in the States, is funding lighthouse restorations, installing new brighter lights and refurbishing the lens. Perhaps the U.S. Government knows something that the German governement doesn't know?

  4. Old news by IBeatUpNerds · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lighthouses have been obsolete since radar came to be. GPS is hardly the starting point for this. At any rate, I'm a fan of lighthouse preservation efforts as I think they're a very interesting part of our evolution of navagational technology, and, in some cases, quite beautiful. Lighthouses have been pretty well obsolete for 40 years.

    1. Re:Old news by forkazoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Radar is common on big boats, but for small personal boats, it would be quite expensive. GPS, on the other hand, is so cheap that almost everybody can afford it.

    2. Re:Old news by Eryq · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder if we can combine the old and new worlds... e.g., turn all the obsolete lighthouses into cell towers...

      --
      I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
    3. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. With radar, GPS, electric lighting, etc. it would be downright embaressing to rely on lighthouses. I'm no mariner, but I can't imagine seeing the shoreline is even an issue this day and age.

    4. Re:Old news by SimonInOz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've never sailed a small boat, have you? Lighthouses are wonderful. There is nothing so bad as your vessel being beaten against a rocky shore ... except, perhaps, not being sure what continent that rocky shore belongs to ...

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
    5. Re:Old news by kfg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And just how well does that shoal show up on radar anyway?

      KFG

    6. Re:Old news by temojen · · Score: 1

      Not every boat has radar or GPS. Every boat needs to know where the rocks are.

    7. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seeing the shoreline is not the problem. Knowing exactly where you are is, at least in bad weather, and then you don't know if you're near or in shallow water (no sonar/radar in small boats). Lighthouses mark dangerous points and can be seen even in heavy storms, when the unilluminated coastline blurs until you practically hit it.

      There have been GPS outages which resulted in hours of whacky readings (thousands of miles off). Lighthouses can fail too, but they're another layer of security.

    8. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Mabye if the boat is big enough, but seriously, nothing electronic can be relied upon after being at sea for a while. Salt water doesn't like electronics, and the feeling seems mutual.
      I have heard stories of old sea dogs who have sailed the pacific, starting out with all of the electronics, and equipment necessary (including an iron genoa) and by the time they made it across, were relying on sextants, compasses, and sail power.
      Just because it works well on land, it don't mean it will last at sea. Smaller privately run yachts (not weekenders) often cannot afford the redundancy required to ensure that all this stuff will work all the time.
      Paper can't crash.

    9. Re:Old news by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      Think navigation buoys.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    10. Re:Old news by slashkitty · · Score: 1

      If you're boating at night with out a GPS, and not an expert navagationalist, you're an idiot.

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    11. Re:Old news by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you want to keep of the old. If it's truly a historical artifact, do you really want the cell phone company to be in charge of it? Also, some of them make very good parks.

    12. Re:Old news by G-funk · · Score: 1

      GPS is like $200... if you can't afford it, you've really got no place out boating (in your own boat) in anything bigger than a tinny, or anything other than clear, daytime weather.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    13. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrong. On the shores of Lake Michigan and Superior there are a few lighthouses still used by the Coast Guard to light the way for ships that pass through the St. Lawrence Seaway.
      They may be obsolete, but still serve their purpose to a point.

    14. Re:Old news by sandman935 · · Score: 1

      Radar is nice, but it never hurts to get a visual fix as well.

      Coastal navigation is not as simple as watching television.

      --

      Defecation occurs.
    15. Re:Old news by Hydrogenoid · · Score: 1

      Single point of failure, especially on a boat is not everyone's cup of tea...
      If you know the shoreline by heart and can navigate eyes closed, fine, but for the rest of the people, landmarks, lighthouses included, can be a lifesaver.

    16. Re:Old news by clean_stoner · · Score: 1

      Even small boats often have radar on them though, my friend has a boat with room for like 15 people (maybe 7 comfortably) with a radar system on board.

      --

      Sigs are for the weak.

    17. Re:Old news by glib909 · · Score: 1

      Hmm ... or some other form of telemetry waypoint. Unfortunately, pretty much half of a cell tower's radius would be in mostly-unoccupied ocean.


      The pseudolites suggestion sounds intriguing ...

      --
      Suudsu, that stuff is G-E-W-D.
    18. Re:Old news by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      and wifi towers

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    19. Re:Old news by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're not thinking small enough. I have been on sailboats that are 22 feet long and some that are 42 feet long. They do NOT have radar. Loran was installed (but it isn't very accurate). GPS is finialy cheap enough, but not always available (requires bateries that can die). Our sailboat had a small gas motor. We had no power source other than bateries on hte smaller boats. Radar is still far and few between on them and will not pick up shallow watters or wrecks. Some form of light is still an advantage in storms where GPS is either un available or too hard to compare to a chart of the area. Lighthoses and buoies are still the best way to go for the smaller boats.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    20. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, dude. People with boats can't afford cell phones.

    21. Re:Old news by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Lighthouses have been obsolete since radar came to be.

      Radar isn't infallible. Rain and fog banks can show up on radar. More so at night when the pilot house has its lights off and the radar hood off. Worse yet... mistake land for a fog bank.

      Depth finders are not infallible. A ship can't stop on a dime.

      Neither are GPS nor Loran. They are damn good tools but once you reach coast you're going to navigate by site and not instruments.

      A big ass spinning light where ships tend to crash is a brillent safty measure. A strong argument to keep lighthouses manned was a place where ships tend to crash is a place where you're going to have people in need of help.

      Lighthouses are not obsolete. I've seen ships crash even with radar and nice map software with GPS maps in areas where an inlet looks kinda like a passage resulting in a ship plowing into someone's house.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    22. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about that. Maybe you're drunk.

    23. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >They may be obsolete, but still serve their purpose to a point.

      Funny a lighthouse purpose is to be a point.....ussaly located on a point on a landmass.

      Automated lighthouses on the great lakes cost more to administer than to mantain as per just about every fixed asset goverment owns.

    24. Re:Old news by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Hmm ... or some other form of telemetry waypoint. Unfortunately, pretty much half of a cell tower's radius would be in mostly-unoccupied ocean.


      Think of the advantages, though. Now you could have obnoxious people talking on cellphones while powering speedboats around at 40 knots!


      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    25. Re:Old news by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some form of light is still an advantage in storms where GPS is either un available or too hard to compare to a chart of the area. Lighthoses and buoies are still the best way to go for the smaller boats.

      You're assuming anyone cares about small sailboats crashing on the shore, or running aground. By your logic, we should cover national parks with floodlights so the random hiker has a safer journey. If a tanker crashes into the coast or runs aground, that's a big deal. If a small sailboat is lost, that's a personal tragedy. At some point people have to take personal responsibility for their actions and the situations they place themselves in. Am I an insensitive clod? Yes. Yes I am.

    26. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So you advocate destroying a system that has been in place for centuries, because you don't give a shit? There's a complete difference between creating something new (like your system of floodlights), and keeping a light thats been running for decades lit.

      Can't wait for your cruise ship to run aground in the dark after its winxp control system goes on the fritz and crashes the automatic navigation.

    27. Re:Old news by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Anyone who claims to be an expert "navagationalist" is a liar.

    28. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPS, on the other hand, is so cheap that almost everybody can afford it.

      What if, for example, the US Govt. privatises the public part of the signal, and the firm that gets the contract jacks the price up too high? Are you going to put your own satellites up there?

    29. Re:Old news by mboverload · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Get a better boat.

      My linux powered Knoppix is the strongest boat in the world. It can withstand even the most ruthless assault by the evil hacker rocks.

    30. Re:Old news by mboverload · · Score: 1

      *cough* sonar *cough*

    31. Re:Old news by RWerp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but the public has been running navigation systems for centuries. You can tax boat owners, if you don't like the idea that YOUR taxes are being spent on that. That would be a fair deal.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    32. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most boats, mine included does not have a radar, and before GPS (i.e. 1992) i navigated waterways in dark and fog using lighthouses.

    33. Re:Old news by Scott7477 · · Score: 1

      The problem with this idea is that at least on the west coast of the US most of the lighthouses are in locations where the cell reception would only go a couple of miles. Try driving down the Oregon coast..those lighthouses are really remote. It's a beautiful drive.

      --
      "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
    34. Re:Old news by keldog728 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      light houses not only let you know where the coast line is, but often where submerged rocks are, which would not show up on radar. An example is the Duxbury Pier light in Plymouth Harbor (MA). While the rocks the light warns boaters from are clearly visible during low tides, at high tides they are completely submerged. The light marks the entrance into three different channels in Cape Cod Bay, and without this light there would be daily accidents.

    35. Re:Old news by lewp · · Score: 1

      "Navigationalist." Yep, probably drunk.

      Of course, anyone who isn't drunk shouldn't be boating in the first place.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    36. Re:Old news by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Radar is common on big boats, but for small personal boats, it would be quite expensive. GPS, on the other hand, is so cheap that almost everybody can afford it.

      If you can afford a boat big enough to need it, you can afford a GPS receiver.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    37. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are three uses for Lighthouses, all for safety. One of them, is to act as a beacon, warning ships of imminent danger. A second reason is to act as a navigation aid. The third is to act as a local rescue agency. If the ships engine is dead, and it's radio is out, the battery powered GPS could be squalking like mad that you are about to hit rocks.... yep, and you know you are going to hit them. GPS won't save you, but the lighthouse keeper might, and before he leaves the building, he will notify the coast guard about where you are and the trouble you are in. The GPS won't do that for you.

    38. Re:Old news by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Well seriously most small boaters know better than to be out past dark, atleast close to shore. Its not like lighthouses are available all along the coastline, and you really should plan your trip better if your docking after dark. Generally best to anchor and just wait it out.

    39. Re:Old news by TheCubic · · Score: 1

      Better yet, WAAS points or their equivalent. It takes seconds to get a GPS lock where I live because of the close, close airport (it took hours before WAAS support).

    40. Re:Old news by temojen · · Score: 1

      You don't live on a small island, do you?

    41. Re:Old news by jagapen · · Score: 1

      Try this experiment: Block out your car's windshield somehow, perhaps with one of those cardboard solar reflectors. Turn on your GPS unit, and use its display to guide you as you drive somewhere at normal speeds. If you survive this experiment, come back and tell us how lighthouses are obsolete.

    42. Re:Old news by po8 · · Score: 1

      On the Oregon Coast, most commercial fishing boats above about 20' have had radar since the mid-80s. It's not as cheap as GPS, typically costing around $1K-$2K for low-end models. On the other hand, it's somewhat more useful: you can see in the fog with it. This helps you avoid mobile obstacles, particularly other boats.

      The death of lighthouses really started with the growth of LORAN. My family's 40' commercial boat got LORAN in the same time frame as marine radar. The combination made navigation in bad weather conditions highly reliable.

    43. Re:Old news by Moofie · · Score: 1

      There's a reason day-sailing craft are called day sailing craft.

      Care to guess what it is?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    44. Re:Old news by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "Paper can't crash."

      But it can be inaccurate. Or rip. Or lost. Or any number of other failures.

      Nothing is foolproof.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    45. Re:Old news by glib909 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, dude. Would the average density of boaters in range justify the cost, of a tower that (unless high-powered directional) doesn't have really much range? That is, if you're not in near a metropolitan area where, chances are there already is a signal available.

      --
      Suudsu, that stuff is G-E-W-D.
    46. Re:Old news by EvanED · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are ignoring the fact that it takes resources to keep the lighthouses running. Electricity costs, maintainance, and if there's someone still manning it, their salary.

      Not saying we should get rid of them, far from it, just that it isn't free to keep going.

    47. Re:Old news by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lighthouses don't light up the whole coast. They'd be more like trail markers and signposts, which they *do* have in national parks. Just like with hiking, navigating with a chart and compass is something every sailor *should* know how to do. GPS should really be tconsidered a convenience, not a necessity.

    48. Re:Old news by henrygondorff · · Score: 1

      Well, in fact, one GPS system could keep track of your position, and notify the nearest coast guard as soon as your signal is lost. Moreover, lighthouses are normally placed in high places, rocky cliffs from which the lighthouse keeper couldn't probably reach in time the place where a ship would crash. It makes sense to think that, in the near future, boats won't allow this to happen either...

    49. Re:Old news by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      YES! God only knows how frustrated I get when I'm lost at sea and I wash up next to a lighthouse and my cell phone doesn't work!

    50. Re:Old news by hachete · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I grant you that radar and GPS have de-emphasised certain parts of navigation and booted out sextants and other radio-based systems like RDF, Loran altogether. Sextant sightings are now treated as an emergency measure, visual sightings by compass are still very useful. Lighthouses play an important role in the navigation environment.

      Radar - good for night navigation and bad weather - only gives you a partial picture and sometimes a less than accurate one - the plan - and sometimes that can be misleading. Nothing better than a lighthouse to truly *fix* your position because it encodes it's identity into light. By the same token, that's why ships still have navigation lights.

      A 3-point fix using compass bearings off of lighthouses and buoys is still the best way to fix your positions. Radar bearings are nowhere near as accurate, and far more prone to the "cocked-hat" problem. The same with Loran.

      At anchor, taking compass bearings off of well-known points is still the best way to see if you're dragging anchor.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    51. Re:Old news by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      Someone else mentioned that not all boats can have radar, but it also depends vastly on the range of said radar. Lighthouses, each with a unique signal, tell the crew exactly where they are, whereas two stretches of coast, visible on radar, may look very similar.
      Radar does not warn ships of dangerous reefs, therefore it is important to know where one is, and if the radar is ambiguous then you won't unless you have another system.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    52. Re:Old news by stridebird · · Score: 2, Informative
      and booted out sextants and other radio-based systems like RDF, Loran altogether

      Not true in the case of Loran C. It is now widely understood that not only is GPS at the mercy of its US military owners who can switch the signal off at any time, but that the GPS signal can be interfered with locally (a radius of 50 - 100 km perhaps).

      Loran C is being proposed as a full back-up system to GPS in the light of these issues - particularily the interference problem. Currently, such an attack in, say, the English Channel would cause big time chaos.

      The European Galileo system, when operative, will not provide an alternative back-up as it will be vulnerable to the same kind of interference attack.

    53. Re:Old news by stridebird · · Score: 1

      If you're an idiot, and boating at night, you are a navigationalist.

    54. Re:Old news by deadweight · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think so. Radar is great for finding things like metal radar reflectors on some Coast Guard buoys, steel boats, high rise buildings, and steep cliffs. Low lying land is nearly or totally invisible to radar, especially if there is any rain or rough seas. Radar will obviously not show outlying UNDERWATER obstacles either. Besides for all that, most boats DON'T HAVE IT.

    55. Re:Old news by hachete · · Score: 1
      Interesting about the interference attacks. What stops Loran C (or any other radio system) from being interfered with? A small EMP from a tiny nuke would wipe out all radio navaid systems in the neighbourhood.

      Also, it appears that Germany and Norway have withdrawn from the Loran agreement. Is Loran clinging on by it's fingernails?

      I also see that they've killed Decca for pretty much the same reasons that Loran C seems to be going out of business. Decca was, for many years, my primary radio navaid - being on a UK ship meant that DECCA was used first and I well remember using it. Comparing the two at it's height, DECCA always had more coverage.

      I think that a good lighthouse system would provide excellent backup system.

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    56. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lighthouses have been obsolete since radar came to be.
      Sorry, I disagree. For one thing, most maritime navigation radars lack the fidelity (largely on the declutter and display aspects) to completely replace good old visual navigation. They are fine for supplementing visual nav, and are better than nothing in fog. Digital processing techniques (and fast fourier transforms) have improved nav radars, and Moore's Law has brought the price down to where many can afford but this was not the case until about 10-15 years ago.

      GPS units are vastly more accurate and can be had for less than a radar set.

      As for the death of lighthouses: may have started once LORAN was deployed, though arguably it's accuracy wasn't much better than radar.

    57. Re:Old news by mks113 · · Score: 1

      And everyone should learn how to paint, because this new fangled photography thing just doesn't last as long, and loses the artistry.

    58. Re:Old news by foobsr · · Score: 1

      ... and, in some cases, quite beautiful.

      Like this rather famous one (on duty from 1st November 1885 - 11th November 1986).

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    59. Re:Old news by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Your last sentence is meaningless and irrelevant here. That's not an error due to GPS, that's an error due to someone failing to consult a chart. You can't trust the fine details of a GPS map, they are for broad reckoning. A lighthouse would give someone a better idea of where on the map they are, but a GPS will do even better. You can only be so accurate based on heading and lighthouse position, because you can't figure your distance to the lighthouse visually. A GPS can do that. So can LORAN.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    60. Re:Old news by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Probably not as well as it shows up on the sonar. A depth finder isn't exactly expensive equipment. Of course, one with good range ain't exactly cheap, but the necessary range increases with the size of the boat, and so does the cost of the boat, so the price of the necessary sonar at least increases with the price of the boat.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    61. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light houses can be set up to broadcast a signal with a precise gps location that when combined with crippled consumer satellite gps it will allow for accuracy of inches.

    62. Re:Old news by kfg · · Score: 1

      The best shoal finder known to man is the bottom of your boat. There's name for anyone who relys on a depth finder to keep them off the rocks:

      Castaway.

      KFG

    63. Re:Old news by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      That's not an error due to GPS, that's an error due to someone failing to consult a chart.

      Hmmmm... I hate to say it but you can still consult a chart and still mistake an inlet with a passage when from the sea they look alike and are right next to each other. As you said "broad reckoning".

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    64. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You've never sailed a small boat, have you? Lighthouses are wonderful.

      Fine. Then lets let the small boats pay for maintianing lighthouses. The commercial boats don't need them anymore and they are the reason lighthouses were installed.

    65. Re:Old news by legirons · · Score: 1

      Seems interesting that in a time when so much money is being spent on trying to prevent aeroplanes crashing, that it is considered prudent to remove one of the things which stops ships crashing...

    66. Re:Old news by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I agree that depending on technology to keep you off the rocks is stupid, but I believe just as strongly that not having inexpensive technology that could keep you off the rocks is stupid. If I were traveling around the ocean in a boat that was important to me (which it necessarily would be, not least because it would be between me and the water) I would certainly want to employ both technology and common sense to keep it there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    67. Re:Old news by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My apologies, then, I guess I misread to some degree. However, it does illustrate the point that it's not GPS' fault, nor does it decrease the system's utility that someone can still screw that one up on paper.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    68. Re:Old news by kfg · · Score: 1

      Electronic technology fails at sea with remarkable regularity, no matter how much you pay for it. I'll use GPS, but I keep my sextant handy.

      KFG

    69. Re:Old news by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      My apologies, then, I guess I misread to some degree. However, it does illustrate the point that it's not GPS' fault, nor does it decrease the system's utility that someone can still screw that one up on paper.

      It's hardly screwing up on paper when the paper is correct and your vessel is in the wrong spot. A passage is two bits of land with water in the middle. An inlet is two bits of land with water in the middle often a bay or a cove. To pass through a passage, you go between two bits of land. Not to be confused with these other two bits of land that mark an enterence to a bay with a crap load of land at the end.

      To make the point clear... let's say the passage in question was marked clearly with a lighthouse/lightship. You see it on the chart and pass on the approperate side. Or better still, a pair of light houses/light ships that mark the passage. That's going to be hard to miss even in heavy fog. If left unmarked... it's going pass between two bits of land that are next to these other two bits of land that you can't pass through.

      I.e. the lighthouse is not obsolete. It does not replace man made landmarks in places where ships tend to crash. Its accuracy is subject to weather conditions as with all radio devices and subject to water sometimes full of salt spraying around and killing electronics and shorting batteries. It's wonderful tool that tends to be more accurate than other systems employed by humans. But it does not replace a beacon telling you "don't go this way you'll run aground!"

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    70. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radars fail, and their readings can be misinterpreted. If you study accidents, you'll notice relying on a single source is typically how many of them happen.
      Lighthouses provide highle necessary redundancy. And of course, few pleasure boats have radars (and if they have, their operators down know how to use them).

  5. Progress by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 0
    Time moves on. If we've now got a better technology than lighthouses, use it and switch off the lighthouses.

    People were probably writing similar things when the fountain pen arrived (the death of the quill?).

    1. Re:Progress by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      If we've now got a better technology than lighthouses, use it and switch off the lighthouses.

      Define "better". GPS doesn't have the reliability of the lighthouse.

      GPS receivers shipboard can fail; severe weather - including "space weather" solar events - can prevent a clear signal; and the Pentagon, operator of the GPS system, reserves the option to degrade or eliminate service at their whim.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Progress by Jeff+Albertson · · Score: 1

      And lighthouses can fail. A heavy fog can set in over the water. Etc. etc.

      --
      the namespace grows ever more crowded.
    3. Re:Progress by Dan+Farina · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point. The point is to have more than one method of navigation, not a match-up for exclusivity.

  6. asdf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to Chinese Restaurant.
    Please try your Nice Chinese Food with chopsticks the traditional and typical of glonous Chinese history. and cultual.

  7. That is until we shut them off... by Art+Pollard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    One thing that must be kept in mind when dealing with GPS systems is that they were developed by the United States military. They are of course, a significant part of the reason why the U.S. can bomb a bunker in Baghdad without having to carpet bomb the entire area (and all the civilians).

    As such, the U.S. military can turn off the satelites or scramble their signal whenever it deems appropriate. So, before our friends the Germans decide to become overly dependant on U.S. technology, they ought to ensure that the world is a stable place otherwise they may find themselves hung out to dry on the reef.

    1. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Suburbanpride · · Score: 1
      I can't find any info on the current status of it, but europe has been planning on deploying their own gps system to escape US control.

      This article, dated 17 Jan 2002, says that the system is off. This one, dated 30 june 2002. says its on, ready to be deployed in 2005.

      --
      sorry 'bout the mess...
    2. Re:That is until we shut them off... by odano · · Score: 1

      The EU is currently making their own positioning satellite system that I believe is going up in the next few years.

    3. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Matey-O · · Score: 1

      That's a non starter. If the Military turns off GPS, they're in the dark too. I can see spot based scrambling, but I cannot see flat turning it off world wide. It's grown too big for that.

      --
      "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
    4. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you thinking the US will need to kick their butts a third time?

    5. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      currently, it's supposed to be being built, but the US has insisted the EU give the US permission to jam galileo - i.e. if the US sees fit to jam the signal, the EU has to just bend over and take it and not cause a diplomatic incident, but the EU can't jam GPS without the US considering it an act of war.

    6. Re:That is until we shut them off... by daveo0331 · · Score: 1

      "They're in the dark too" is not true at all. There's two different signals, one of which anyone can use and the other of which only the military can use. They can turn the public signal off and leave the military-only signal on. Also, they can turn off the public signal in a specific area without having to turn it off worldwide. For example, I'm pretty sure they did this in and around Iraq when they first invaded.

      --
      Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
    7. Re:That is until we shut them off... by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      If the Military turns off GPS, they're in the dark too.

      I wouldn't be at all suprised if they had the ability to turn it off for the non-Military, yet leave it on for the Military.

    8. Re:That is until we shut them off... by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      There are two main services PPS ( precision positioning system) and SPS ( standard positioning system).
      The military can turn off SPS, or cause it to deviate to the point that its not very accurate as they did before selective avalibility was turned off in 2002.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    9. Re:That is until we shut them off... by sandman935 · · Score: 1

      The opposite is true. The U.S. used to add an error to the unencrypted position. During the first Iraq war, this spoofing was removed.

      --

      Defecation occurs.
    10. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your wrong. The public signal is used to get enough data to lock onto the mil signal. All the GPS jamming in Iraq was done by local aircraft.

    11. Re:That is until we shut them off... by rewt66 · · Score: 1

      Well, what I think they've done in the past is "make it deviate to the point that it's not very accurate", but "not very accurate" is relative.

      The "low accuracy" version of GPS is good enough for ship navigation in almost all instances. If your navigation requires accuracy within 3 meters to keep you off the rocks, you're going to have problems even with GPS running in high-accuracy mode. One big wave and you're aground...

    12. Re:That is until we shut them off... by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      The 3 meters is the low version currently, it used to be 100 meters until ~2002. Some ships will use DGPS, as do land surveyers, but this equipment is a little on the high side, a little higher than joe blow wants to spend when his Etrex is only ~$100.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    13. Re:That is until we shut them off... by daveo0331 · · Score: 1

      Then how did all those GPS-guided missiles find their targets?

      From Wikipedia: [F]or military purposes, "Selective Deniability" may still be used to, in effect, jam civilian GPS units in a war zone or global alert while still allowing military units to have full functionality. In reality, the shortage of military GPS units and the wide availability of civilian ones among personnel resulted in disabling the Selective Availability in the time of the Gulf War.

      So turning off the civilian signal does make things harder for the military -- not because you need the civilian signal to "lock onto" the military signal, but because there apparently aren't enough military GPS units to go around.

      You can be sure that all of those million-dollar guided missiles are equipped with the ability to use the military signal, and are not relying on the civilian signal in any way.

      --
      Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
    14. Re:That is until we shut them off... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Do you really believe that the "evil doers" haven't figured out how to read the military-only signal yet?

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    15. Re:That is until we shut them off... by ryanmfw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we caught all of those Iraqi's with GPS units and night vision goggles. Oh, wait, they didn't even have regular goggles? :P

      --
      Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
    16. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Riddlefox · · Score: 1

      Selective Availability was turned off on 1 May 2000.

    17. Re:That is until we shut them off... by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      Do you really believe that its not encrpyted with many large encryption keys dependent on the satellite or location that the signal is coming from? Each signal's individual key also changing with time? The military signal is one of the most guarded military technologies, infact even if your authorized to use it, it can still be a pain syncing up. Usually the sync will only be good for a period or time and/or at some location. If you theoretically did crack the signal, it'd only do you good in your country or wherever you picked up the signal from. The military signal with enough statellites could easily allow you to send a missile from any where in the world to a picnic table with a can of soda on it and have the missile just skim the top of the can. It is damn accurate and the military takes no chances with it.
      Regards,
      Steve

    18. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      The military signal with enough statellites could easily allow you to send a missile from any where in the world to a picnic table with a can of soda on it and have the missile just skim the top of the can. It is damn accurate and the military takes no chances with it.

      Isn't the kill radius of a 500lb bomb something like 400 feet? Even with SA, a decent missile could hit any spot you care to name.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    19. Re:That is until we shut them off... by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean a first time? The US didn't play much of a role in the fighting in WWI, and in WWII the brunt of the fighting was borne by Russia. I'm not saying that the US didn't do anything, but to say that they kicked Germany's butt is a gross exaggeration.

    20. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In reality, GPS was significantly more accurate than 100 m before 2000. 100 m was the worst case scenario with maximum errors introduced by SA, which very rarely happened.

      Joe Blow's $100 etrex receives WAAS signals that improve accuracy to DGPS standards (3 m 95%). Even without WAAS, GPS has a horizontal accuracy of 5 m 95% of the time. Welcome to 2002.

    21. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is because of 'American private interests' that they went ahead with their system. The US millitary could cook up any excuse to allow Haliburton's ships to navigate more easily, and wreck european shipping. Oops, sorry is less than what the millitary would offer. The US millitary isn't interested in foreigners. It's their primary job to shoot foreigners. That those foreigners do not want to be shot is of no interest to the US millitary, nor is their trade or anything else. This is precicely why Gallileo must go ahead. There is no reason why european interests should be burdened by the whims of some american general, and since they have their own interests to look after (certainly US generals won't), and their own means of looking after their interests, they should. (It's what an American would do).

    22. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WWI i'll give you that. but the US was the reason they gave up.

      WWII kicked the snot out of them. period. if D-day and the battle of the bulge is not an ass kicking i don't know what is.

    23. Re:That is until we shut them off... by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      Thing is, the main difference between Galileo and the US GPS/NavSat is that Galileo is _not_ built for military purposes, but for civilian use. Of course there may be military applications in the future, if well paid for it, but that's not its main purpose. It's funded by the EU and the ESA (european space agency). The first satellites will be launched sometimes this year.

      A good thing is that it will be US GPS-compatible on the average user's level, that is very good, and another good thing is that will provide better coverage for northern Europe countries (where GPS doesn't do a very good job, goven the lower altitute and lower degree of its satellites).

      And another good thing is Uncle Sam's actual government or president won't be able to switch it over to full US military use (which it can, it being a standard feature of GPS) if the sudden need arises.

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    24. Re:That is until we shut them off... by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1
      WWI i'll give you that. but the US was the reason they gave up.
      t was certainly a reason, but certainly not the reason. Don't oversimply things. WWI was far more complicated than that. In fact, Germany was all but defeated by the time the US entered the war. It wasn't even officially a member of the Allies, only an "Associated Power".
      WWII kicked the snot out of them. period. if D-day and the battle of the bulge is not an ass kicking i don't know what is.
      If you want to single out one battle and ignore the rest of the war, then yes. The Russians fought (and won) even bigger battles: look up Stalingrad and Kursk.
    25. Re:That is until we shut them off... by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      Somehow I'm willing to bet the U.S. can jam pretty much whatever they want, when they want. It's probably just a diplomacy thing to "ask" permission from the EU. Of course, it would be easier if the EU just put a big red "JAM GALILEO" button on the President's desk. :^)

    26. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you have not seen any American war movies. Those "allies" are nowhere to be seen, except when some stodgy "leff-tenant" gets in the way. Man, get your facts straight.

    27. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please define your version of "kick their butts".

      clearly you have a very distorted view of things.

    28. Re:That is until we shut them off... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The military has other satellites with encrypted signals that civilians are not allowed to use. They can turn on selective availability and not affect their signals.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      When the military "turns off" the high precision GPS data, what they do is put in a scrambling code that uses a pseudo-random number generator to throw the precision off. This makes the numbers less accurate for civilian (and supposedly enemy combatants) using GPS for coordinates. This algorithm changes (or did change) regularly, but was published through classified channels and could be compensated for with military equipment.

      What the military did a few years ago was shut down the scrambling operation, so as a result the numbers are considerably more accurate.

      There is the potential of "turning off GPS" as well, but that is much more extreme.... probably to be done only on a situation like 9/11/2001. You would know about it as a civilian because it would be advertised all over the place and commercial flights would be grounded... ships told to stay put where they just happened to be at, and a total grinding to a halt of the U.S. economy. Basically not a trivial thing that would be done lightly. Even the scrambling system being turned back on would be a time to start investing strongly in gold and other precious metals.

    30. Re:That is until we shut them off... by koniosis · · Score: 1

      Don't be so stupid, the terms work both ways, the US can diable the EU system and the EU can disable the US system. In the unlikely? event that they goto war with each other, they can tell one another to go fuck themselves and do what the hell they want. Do you really think either side would be so retarded?

      --
      I spent ages trying to think of sig, but never did :(
    31. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, you do

    32. Re:That is until we shut them off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US was the primary reason that the European theater was won in WW2 not because of its troops - which were important but not absolutely necessary - but because its home base was essentially immune to attack or invasion, and it was able to provide the materiel and basic supplies. "Arsenal of democracy", etc. The most important battle Americans ever fought in WW2's European theater was, correspondingly, the Battle of the Atlantic.

  8. Why take them out? by chrispyman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Although the lighthouses really aren't needed, do they really cost so much for upkeep to where it's not cost effective to keep the system running as a backup? I would imagine that it would be very nice to still have lighthouses should a ship suddenly find its GPS no longer working.

    1. Re:Why take them out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. GPS isn't so fool proof that it should be relied on exclusively. Also, airport runways still have lights and airpots have all sorts of fancy systems to assist landings.

    2. Re:Why take them out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree for the short term (many years) anyway. They are a work of art if nothing else. I know I have enjoyed visiting lighthouses for photographic moment...

  9. No problem by __aagujc9792 · · Score: 0, Troll

    The "critics" should simply buy the charming lighthouses and operate them as a hobby. Oh? They want their neighbors to pay for their hobby? Hahahahaha! See? I *told* you socialism rots the brain!

    1. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidently conservativism rots the brain. Or perhaps you didn't read the part about the safety issues involved if GPS systems fail. Or perhaps you're just trolling.

    2. Re:No problem by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      Back under the bridge, troll. I've certainly seen historic preservation efforts supported by more than "socialists", and sometimes such preservation really is in the interest of everyone. Should we tear down the Parthanon, the countless Roman buildings left in Italy, or other historical gems, just because they aren't cost-effective anymore? Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    3. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's talking about tearing anything down?

      It's not cost effective to keep running the lighthouse. It may still be cost effective to keep the buildings as a tourist attraction.

    4. Re:No problem by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      So anyone who now believes in a "public good" is a socialist? It's not about "charming lighthouses", it's about backup technology when the system fails. GPS receivers, while cheap are not infallable. The GPS system, while reliable is still vulnerable to solar storms, politics, and failed satelites.

      Obviously lighthouses aren't 100% reliable either, but they aren't a single system like GPS that has the potential for the whole system to fail. Lighthouses don't rely on equipment in boats that can fail. All you need is a pair of eyes.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:No problem by __aagujc9792 · · Score: 0

      So you didn't see anything familiar in the tired old pattern of introducing a ridiculous risk proposition as a way to hitch an agenda to "the public good"[1]? 1) Produce specious risk. 2) Propose use of public resource to mitigate risk 3) Buy votes for your party by controlling those resources. The chance of the GPS system failing is almost precisely the chance of general war, as that is probably the only scenario that could take it down. So if this risk justifies keeping lighthouses around, just in case, I suppose we should also create a stock of sailing ships, just in case, because I can tell you the fuel situation is going to be very tight after such a catastrophe. Don't even get me started on the whole question of what we would do for pr0n in a world of mutants. We must build stockpiles today! [1] Sneer quotes for the question-begging assumption that the public good is self-evidently obvious to all right thinking people and that anyone who opposes your proposal therefore has corrupt motives.

    6. Re:No problem by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      The chance of the GPS system failing is almost precisely the chance of general war

      Or the chance of a large solar storm affecting radio transmissions. Wars also actually DO happen. You've also conveniently ignored the fallibility of GPS receivers. Don't act like this is some kind of pork-barrel project that costs billions of dollars (or in this case German Marks). Maintaining an automated lighthouse has to be about dirt cheap.

      --
      AccountKiller
  10. NO FIRST POST FOR YOU!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come back, ONE STORY!!!!

  11. They still have their place by neo_mushroom · · Score: 0

    I live in Nova Scotia (Canada? huh??), and Peggy's Cove has been a huge tourist attraction for as long as I can remember. Just Google image it, fibd some pictures of the rocks, tourists love that crap.

    --
    Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF
    ALL MY BASE ARE BELONG TO YOU

  12. Lighthouses are still valuable... by aquarian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...as tourist attractions. In fact the actual light and other equipment has been automated for years. Many navigational beacons are solar powered, and almost maintenance free.

    1. Re:Lighthouses are still valuable... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In fact the only lighthouse in the United States that is still manned and maintained by the government (the United States Coast Guard) is Boston Harbor Light. It was the first lighthouse in the nation, which is why the government has agreed to keep it manned while all the others maintained by the USCG are automated.

    2. Re:Lighthouses are still valuable... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Many lighthouses, especially those on remote islands, are also manned weather stations and occasionally conservation research stations too. If you need to do the weather collection and conservation research, it's often just as easy to operate the lighthouse too.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Lighthouses are still valuable... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      In fact the actual light and other equipment has been automated for years.

      Electronic
      Automated
      Robotic
      Lighthouse

      A machine?! Earl's a machine?! Oh, that's just perfect! Homer's desperate search for a soulmate has yielded a lighthouse-keeping robot. Oh, wow.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Lighthouses are still valuable... by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you, except that they're very much not automated on the west coast of Canada. Yes, they go on automatically and whatnot, but my dad and uncle are lighthouse keepers and I have two other uncles who have done so in the past. The east coast is fairly gentle and access to the lighthouses there is relatively easy. The west is different. Some have loading winches/cranes, while other are maintained entirely via helicopter access because the rocks are too trecherous. When you have 100 foot waves and 70 knot winds, you need someone there who can fix things NOW, not a week later when the weather subsides and you can fly in.

      A second reason lighthouses continue to be staffed are for weather reports. Thirdly, many times people simply get lost, and it helps to have people near by who have maps and know the area to help them locate themselves (with radio). Forthly, many places along the BC coast exist in radio shadows. Mountains jutt from the ocean floor straight up. The nearest coast guard base is often out of radio contact. Lastly, the lighthouse keepers keep a watchful eye on the coast. As most of the BC coast is uninhabited (because it's so inaccessible), having lighthouse keepers there helps maintain Canadian sovereignty over its land.

      --
      Be relentless!
  13. like old business models by serano · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Lighthouses are like the RIAA. The conditions that allowed them to flourish have changed, leaving them superfluous. At least in one way, lighthouses have an advantage over the RIAA; they are charming and endearing to many people, and they provide nostaligic pleasure. No one will miss the RIAA.

    1. Re:like old business models by barc0001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Everyone here seems to get it wrong. We went through the same thing over the last few years on the west coast of Canada over closing up lighthouses, replacing them with automatic beacons. A lot of them are starting to be opened again and staffed by humans. Why?

      Everyone thinks a lighthouse just sits there and looks bright in the darkness. The ones on the west coast here:

      - radio in weather reports from their stations
      - test the water for pollution and temperature
      - test salinity of the water at high and low tides
      - send in visibility reports
      - assist passing boaters with information via radio.
      - assist boaters who know where they are already (thanks to those GPSs) but also know they're in trouble.

      Last week I saw a thing on TV on the daily schedule of a lighthouse up in northwest BC. Did you know the lighthouse keepers' day starts at 3AM with the first readings and goes until 10 PM? Which is usually why it's either a family or at least 2 people staffing them.

      GPS units can help you avoid troubles just fine, but if you're already in a situation, it can't do more than tell you where you are. A lighthouse can coordinate assistance efforts on your behalf, and if you're close enough, may be able to either guide you in, or come get you in their launch.

    2. Re:like old business models by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      I'm not a boater, but I assume that a lighthouse keeper also provides a "human interface" contact and confidence for sailors in the region.

      Like, say, when it happens that he knows that a bunch of supermodels on a yacht during a nude photo shoot have gotten drunk and are feeling frisky.

      Can GPS do that? Huh? Can it? No.

    3. Re:like old business models by po8 · · Score: 1

      The light itself is a very expensive component of the lighthouse. Extremely high-output light source plus extremely large optics = extreme maintenance costs. Keeping the lighthouse station open for the tasks you mention makes a lot of sense. Keeping the light running perhaps less so. Very few of the lighthouses on the Oregon Coast actually run the lights any more. No one I know seems to miss them much.

      Amusing footnote I just remembered: my Uncle owned a commercial fishing boat in the early 70s and used to navigate by triangulating AM radio stations with a transistor radio and directional loop antenna. Actually worked really well: in particular, there was almost always a radio station somewhere in the small fishing towns he was visiting that would take him right up to the bar. Of course, cheap LORAN was a dramatic improvement...

    4. Re:like old business models by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      Very true. Not everyone stays calm when they get lost. Hearing a human voice on a radio can be very reassuring. Also, lighthouse keepers tend to be familiar with the local topography and can help a lost boater reorient him or herself.

      --
      Be relentless!
    5. Re:like old business models by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      The light is still very useful. You can seem them up to 50 miles away, or would, if the Earth didn't curve. The Oregon coast is relatively smooth, but that is not the case in BC, where passage ways are often narrow. In the dark, when you can't see where you are, a lighthouse can be an extremely useful bearing. It can be hard to know the exact direction of a fog horn, and you don't have time to listen when your boat is being tossed up and down by waves that can reach over 100 feet in severe weather.

      --
      Be relentless!
    6. Re:like old business models by eh2o · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The large optics and high maintenance costs are a thing of the past. Modern lighthouse fixtures, which can sometimes be found bolted on the outside of historic lighthouses, are very compact (e.g. the one at point arena is only 40 pounds), efficient, and have better visibility to boot.

    7. Re:like old business models by po8 · · Score: 1

      Huh. Might have guessed. The light source itself is probably still quite expensive, but by itself shouldn't be prohibitive.

      Thanks much for the update!

    8. Re:like old business models by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      Lighthouses are like the RIAA. The conditions that allowed them to flourish have changed, leaving them superfluous.


      I seriously doubt that analogy.

      The conditions that allowed lighthouses to flourish haven't been made superfluous. Boats? Check. Ocean? Check. Navigation? Check. Need to avoid rocks? Check.

      No matter the amount of fancy gear on board, every vessel still needs to (or at least should) use traditional navigation to verify what they think they know. Electronics fail, weather changes, the US military reserves the right to fiddle with the accuracy of the units. Hell, even the US Navy's own people still plot stuff the old way as a backup -- and they've got all the goodies.

      There simply is no substitute for a light in a fixed, known place. Comparing the way people use lighthouses with the way the RIAA responds to file-sharing is just plain silly -- we're not talking about someone propping business model here.

      You'll notice we still put stop signs at the actual intersections instead of having the central computer system beaming an image of the stop-sign onto your HUD. And we probably always will.

      That's like saying the nipple has been made superfluous because in the future babies will just click on their PDA to indicate they're hungry and the robot maid will bring food. It's a nice theory, it sounds cool, and it has no bearing on how they're actually used.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  14. We still have paper around... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think most people prefer to have an analog backup of some sort, especially when safety is concerned. We still don't trust our digital resources, so why should we rely on them wholly in navigation?

  15. Those things suck a lot of power. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Refering to the Nuclear thread - I bet the same guys who hate nucular power are the same guys who like lighthouses.

  16. News Flash!.. by Entouchable · · Score: 1

    ...and in other news computers are killing the typewriter...

    1. Re:News Flash!.. by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

      uh.... they are!

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
  17. Time for a new business model by dswensen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lighthouse makers just need to move to a new "all-lawsuit" model of revenue like the music and movie industry has. GPS is denying lighthouse makers their constitutionally protected right to obscene amounts of profit. If you're using a GPS, you're stealing from lighthouses*. It's as simple as that.

    * or, if you prefer, copyright infringing from lighthouses.

    1. Re:Time for a new business model by Living+WTF · · Score: 1

      They will, after they figure out how to protect their light from being seen by pirates.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
    2. Re:Time for a new business model by Macadamizer · · Score: 1

      But if the pirates can't see the light, how will they keep their ships from running aground? Do you really want all of that wreckage floating around? And what about all of that booty?

      --

      "That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
    3. Re:Time for a new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will, after they figure out how to protect their light from being seen by pirates.

      I'd give you a funny modpoint if I had any.

    4. Re:Time for a new business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will have to use the stars (like mininova) to find their booty.

    5. Re:Time for a new business model by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Lighthouse makers just need to move to a new "all-lawsuit" model of revenue like the music and movie industry has. GPS is denying lighthouse makers their constitutionally protected right to obscene amounts of profit. If you're using a GPS, you're stealing from lighthouses*. It's as simple as that.

      * or, if you prefer, copyright infringing from lighthouses.


      That's o.k. because lighthouses infringe on the prexisting patent for sailing by star light so it doesn't matter if GPS infringes on lighthouses.

    6. Re:Time for a new business model by ayjay29 · · Score: 1

      >>Lighthouse makers just need to move to a new "all-lawsuit" model of revenue like the music and movie industry has. GPS is denying lighthouse makers their constitutionally protected right to obscene amounts of profit.

      And what about that band called "The Lighthouse Family", ohhhhh double trouble there...

      --
      Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
  18. ObSimpsons by sharkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Is that dad?"
    "Either that, or Batman's really let himself go!"

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  19. this is not new... by ecalkin · · Score: 1

    They have been de-activating lighthouses in the united states for decades now. From way before GPS. A prior post mentioned radar and there are other advanced technologies being used (GPS is more accurate).

    The ones that aren't deactivated are mostly automated.

    There are some fairly serious lighthouse preservations groups here.

  20. Levels of protection by DaveRobb · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I get the feeling from reading this article that this while this quote:

    Though the 15 lighthouses on the North Sea cost German taxpayers about 400,000 a year to operate, money alone should not be a reason for shutting them down.

    says money isn't the only reason, the shipping companies and possibly governments have no reason other than money to want to see them gone.

    And for what? 400k euro/year? Granted, that's only for 15 lighthouses, but that's peanuts compared to what is spent on other things.

    I wonder what a supertanker spill would cost to clean up, after there's a power failure onboard and the GPS nav systems are offline, and there aren't any lighthouses to use as backups.
    1. Re:Levels of protection by Jeff+Albertson · · Score: 1

      If the conditions you describe cause a 'tanker spill' they were hardly the only factors. In fact, if that were all it took, it would be time to land all the tankers permanently.

      --
      the namespace grows ever more crowded.
  21. Question FTA by riptide_dot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTA: "For one thing, GPS can never be 100 percent reliable -- extreme weather conditions like hail or snowfall or even solar winds are known to disrupt service."

    I'm just wondering - couldn't those same factors affect a captain's visibility to a lighthouse?

    I don't think that all lighthouses are in immediate danger of closure. This from the The National Lighthouse museum:

    "With all of the advances made in electronic navigation over the last half century, the use of lighthouses as aids to navigation has certainly waned. The Global Positioning System (GPS), in particular, has transformed the art of navigation to electronic methods. Lighthouses are still used by ships as a back up to their satellite navigation aids, however, and they are used by small boats that aren't equipped with the necessary navigational electronics. Some lighthouses, which are used as range lights are still as important today as they ever were."

    The Staten Island Lighthouse, for example, is the rear range light for the Ambrose Channel Range, the primary deep-draft channel into New York Harbor, and remains of vital importance to New York marine traffic."


    Here's an ironic twist too: Using a GPS to find a lighthouse.

    And: The GPS coordinates of many lighthouses.

    --
    I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
    1. Re:Question FTA by lommer · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you couldn't see far because a sun flare exploded and doused our satellites with radiation? It happens...

    2. Re:Question FTA by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I'm just wondering - couldn't those same factors affect a captain's visibility to a lighthouse?

      While the weather you mention can affect the captains ability to see a lighthouse, the lighthouse has a powerful enough beam to cut through most weather. If a captain can't see a light house beam, it is some very bad weather and the captain is effectively sailing blind. Any captain stupid enough to get near land in a case like that is going to get their license revoked.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:Question FTA by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      I always wondered why we had a lighthouse on the middle of staten island. I thought they were always near the water, ours is just at the top of a hill in the middle of the island, didn't think it did much either since it doesn't seem to be on that much.

    4. Re:Question FTA by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I was curious as to whether range lights were the same thing as leading lights and they are.

      When the two lights are in line you know you are heading in the right direction on the right course.

    5. Re:Question FTA by mbbac · · Score: 1
      FTA: "For one thing, GPS can never be 100 percent reliable -- extreme weather conditions like hail or snowfall or even solar winds are known to disrupt service."

      I'm just wondering - couldn't those same factors affect a captain's visibility to a lighthouse?
      No, solar winds will not affect the visibility of a lighthouse.
      --

      mbbac

    6. Re:Question FTA by mlush · · Score: 1
      Here's an ironic twist too: Using a GPS to find a lighthouse.
      And: The GPS coordinates of many lighthouses.

      Wow! Hold the front page! Lighthouses have Latitude and Longiturde coordinates!!

  22. Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know how most of you are all for new technology but we need these failsafes. What happens if your gps unit fails or your boat naviagation systems are no longer functioning. It is far too dangerous in my opinion to allow lighthouses and other (now secondary) naviagation aids fall to the wayside b/c of newer technology.

  23. as if galileo would be any better... by slew · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe they'll get less opposition to closing light houses if they forced german ships to use the new EU galileo system instead of GPS.

    On the other hand, if this happens, perhaps the lighthouse preservation lobby will force the EU government to cancel Galileo to save historic lighthouses. Stranger things have happened in Europe...

  24. Free for all by computechnica · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's too bad that foreign governments bad mouth the US but then freely enjoy a service intended for the US military 8^0

    1. Re:Free for all by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      The only reason why Europe has GPS service is that the US military wants the ability to accuratly blow up any location on the planet.

      That's not a 'free' service in my book.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    2. Re:Free for all by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Really. Intriguing. How about writing an actual argument (what exactly does "badmouthing" consist of, and who exactly did it?) so that I (or someone else) can tear it apart. As it stands now, it's barely worth replying to and purely a flamebait.
      The US government is free to try and restrict GPS usage - especially with Galileo around the corner - but even if it could, something tells me it's not about to stop its closest military and political allies from using it. The economic consequences alone are enough.

      As for yourself, try finding a more suitable way of coping with criticism.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    3. Re:Free for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as how US companies hold the majority of patents related to GPS, its not like the US isn't profiting from the uptake of GPS. Since it is a broadcast system, the number of users make no difference to its operational costs. By opening of the system to civilian uses, they've essentially gotten other countries to pay for the R&D and ongoing costs of a military system, while still having the option of shutting it down on a whim.

    4. Re:Free for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think that using the GPS system is free?
      Just because you don't have to pay a monthly rate doesn't suggest this.

      Part of the cost of a GPS receiver is the licensing fee.

    5. Re:Free for all by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      And it's a shame the US threatened to shoot down the alternative european/asian Galileo system if the US military couldn't have the right to shut the new system down when it wanted, and has also applied as much pressure as it can to stop countries getting involved with Galileo at all.

      And you wonder why other governments disagree with US policy sometimes?

      Clinton had a much better policy - let people use the satellites free and non-degraded, leading to massive civilan commercial adoption - and given only US companies were allowed to make GPS receiver components, it had a massive benefit for the US economy directly as well as indirectly. But hey, it's far better to make your allies so suspicious of your actions that they'll invest over a billion to get their own system not under your control, huh.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    6. Re:Free for all by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      The only reason why Europe has GPS service is that the US military wants the ability to accuratly blow up any location on the planet. That's not a 'free' service in my book.

      GPS consists of two separate signals: PPS and SPS. PPS is encrypted and is what the military uses to blow stuff up. SPS is unencrypted and can be turned off or "degraded" at will either globally or over certain geographic areas. SPS is what all commercial GPS is based on. If all they were concerned with was blowing shit up, they wouldn't have SPS.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    7. Re:Free for all by Jeff+Albertson · · Score: 1

      The only reason why Europe has GPS service is that the US military wants the ability to accuratly blow up any location on the planet.

      It sucks when the military can't do it accurately and has to blow up all kinds of extra stuff to get the job done.

      Now, we can argue wether the job 'needs doing' but are you really a carpet bombing enthusiast?

      --
      the namespace grows ever more crowded.
    8. Re:Free for all by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      My guess is that the reason for having SPS unencrypted is that it makes it not worthwhile to do the work of decrypting PPS. If PPS were the only available service, decoding it woulda been a /. article long long time ago.

      Ye olde slight-of-hand standard: Keep their eyes on the obvious stuff, and they won't notice where the real work occurs.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    9. Re:Free for all by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      My guess is that the reason for having SPS unencrypted is that it makes it not worthwhile to do the work of decrypting PPS. If PPS were the only available service, decoding it woulda been a /. article long long time ago.

      From what I remember of the few PLGR units I used in the gulf, military GPS units use what is basically a one-time pad type system. The crypto key is good for 6 weeks. When that key expires, you load the next from a secure data transfer device. The military has a serious belt-and-suspenders approach to key management. The keys are large enough to realistically take decades to brute-force, and they change them very frequently.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    10. Re:Free for all by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Correction: they were SLGR units. PLGR's are the nice hand-held ones we WISHED we had.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    11. Re:Free for all by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      The keys are large enough to realistically take decades to brute-force, and they change them very frequently.

      Even so, you don't want to tempt fate, and 1million geeks working at it part-time are far more likely to find a way to game the system (if there is one) than 25 high-security spooks working in Moscow.

      There's nothing you could do about the 25 spooks in Moscow, but if giving the 1million geeks a 'good enough' toy to play with is enough to keep them at bay, it's really cheap insurance (and good PR to boot).

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    12. Re:Free for all by nomadic · · Score: 2, Informative

      And it's a shame the US threatened to shoot down [spacedaily.com] the alternative european/asian Galileo system if the US military couldn't have the right to shut the new system down when it wanted

      Alright, that phrasing's just a bit overdone. The US didn't threaten to just shoot it down arbitrarily, they just said they might have to if it were used by a foreign power that was at war with the US.

    13. Re:Free for all by B2382F29 · · Score: 1

      they just said they might have to if it were used by a foreign power that was at war with the US.

      Considering actions of US government in the last few years there is a very high probability that it would be shot down as soon as it came to life. After all, who knows which country is next on the "Axis Of Evil".

      --
      Move Sig. For great justice.
    14. Re:Free for all by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      So when someone uses Galileo to pilot a tanker with a dirty bomb into new york harbour (as opposed to using a lighthouse) can we expect galileo to be shot down then?

      The grandparent was complaining about how dissenting governments were using GPS without paying for it (and didn't mention the US ability to turn it off when it chooses it it wants). I'm pointing out that even when such governments help fund a largely civilian funded alternative system, the US STILL wants control of it, to the extent of saying to politicians it's negotiating with about it that it reserves the right to shoot it down if they feel it's necessary.

      You really think threatening your allies with blowing up over three billion's worth of infrastructure (and god knows how much damage to civilian life when their critical ship navigation systems go down permanently) if they can't turn it off is a fair negotiation tactic?

      What's next? The US threatening to bomb the london jails if the British don't extradite suspected terrorists fast enough (israel bombed a palestinian one, so maybe the US might follow their example)

      How would you feel if say, France told you to give them override access to the GPS system or they might have to shoot it down next time they were at war with an african nation (who happened to be using GPS to direct their guerilla units to french bases)?

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    15. Re:Free for all by nomadic · · Score: 1

      There is zero probability that it would be shot as soon as it came to life. It would destroy NATO, irreparably damage relations with both Europe and China, and quite possibly lead to war. US foreign policy is bad enough without exagerrating.

  25. I hate these by nate+nice · · Score: 1

    I hate hearing stories about how a new technology is killing an old industry. Well no shit, that's the purpose of them! How many people feared computers would destroy a billion different industries? Well, they did! And they created a trillion new ones. This is the point of technology. To destroy old ways of doing things by creating more effeciant, reliable and cost effective technolgies to replace them.

    Unfourtunatly we have numerous companies that fear technolgy as well (auto, oil spring to mind) as it could potentially kill their business model. Certainly if any of the CEO's were as smart as they liked to believe, they would see they better adobt new technolgy before someone else does and crushes them with it.

    That's the beauty of general technolgy I think; It allows new empires to crush old ones by being more effeciant, cost friendly and reliable.

    I really believe in the end, new technology benefits people. Fearing it will, at best, delay your inevitable demise by a fraction.

    It's called an evolution.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  26. The Lighthouse Joke by krunk4ever · · Score: 5, Funny

    the moment satellites or the gps system fails, we'll get something like: Believe it or not...this is the transcript of an actual radio conversation between a US naval ship and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. The Radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on Oct. 10, 1995. US Ship: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision. CND reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision. US Ship: This is the Captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert your course. CND reply: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course! US Ship: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA*, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!! CND reply: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

    1. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah right... just another Urban Legend http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthse.htm

    2. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a newfie this is an urban legend and never actually happened. :) There was no conversation like this in October of 1995.

    3. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/questions/lite huse.html

      Navy denies it

    4. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by DBA_01123 · · Score: 0
    5. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Lighthouses have a number of uses. Manned lighthouses provide local emergency services. If your boat sinks, a lighthouse will indicate the general direction of the shore (very useful when your GPS is 50 feet underwater). Also, of course, useful when your GPS has died all of a sudden.

      This reminds me of the parable:

      Acolyte: Father, what is the difference between knowledge and faith?
      Priest: Knowledge is like the Sun. Faith is like a candle.
      Acolyte: But I thought that faith was more important than knowledge. How can that be, the Sun is far brighter than any candle!
      Priest: Come back and ask me again at midnight.
      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    6. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      It is an urban legend, but still funny. The Navy even denies this event.

      Snopes

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    7. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Buzzard2501 · · Score: 1

      As funny as it is, its really just another urban legend

      --
      Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
    8. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, look at everyone pointing out that it's an urban legend. Perhaps that's why the OP said it was a joke.

    9. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      Do you have trouble understanding/reading simple posts?


      Believe it or not...this is the transcript of an actual radio conversation between a US naval ship and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. The Radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on Oct. 10, 1995.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    10. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what's hilarious?

      People believing an urban legend because it's printed on Slashdot.

      How about this:

      "Believe it or not... pimentos actually grow in the olives."

    11. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask yourself the same question.

    12. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the thread title.

    13. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, that was the actual text of an actual urban legend. The title of this thread is "the lighthouse JOKE". he wansn't trying to pass it off, dickweed.

    14. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      The story sounds apocryphal, but you have a point. I have another to make:

      GPS relies upon satellites in low earth orbit, protected from solar radiation by the Earth's magnetic field. The magnetic field is in the process of reversing poles, as it periodically does, a process of indeterminate duration. When this happens, the satellites will be naked and vulnerable to bursts of solar radiation, which means it's likely that many or most of the satellites in orbit will be disabled during the pole shift, crippling navigation and communications.

      The pole shift seems to be accelerating, creating an ever-growing discrepancy between true North and magnetic North. When all is said and done, North will become South and we'll all have to buy new compasses. In the meantime, don't toss your compasses, LORAN, sextants, inertial navigation, and dead reckoning.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    15. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a problem reading SIMPLE subjects?

      Re:The Lighthouse Joke

    16. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      According to the US Navy the USS Coral was scrapped in July 2nd 1993 - and according to this web page you're the victim of a urban legend.

    17. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have trouble understanding/reading simple posts?

      Do you?

      The OP copy-and-pasted verbatim the text of the urban legend, which does indeed start out claiming it was an actual radio conversation, etc. -- as urban legends often do. The OP then labeled it as a joke.
    18. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      The coast guard would be far better at that than some guy in a light house.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    19. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      The coast guard would be far better at that than some guy in a light house.

      Try and ell me that when you're in the water, and the nearest coast guard station is 40 miles away... Then reread the parable in my previous post.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    20. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy new compasses?

      I'm personally going to save the $$ and remember that south is now north and north is now south.

      new compasses, geez, do you work for the compass industry? :P

    21. Re:The Lighthouse Joke by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Lighthouses have a number of uses. Manned lighthouses provide local emergency services. If your boat sinks, a lighthouse will indicate the general direction of the shore (very useful when your GPS is 50 feet underwater). Also, of course, useful when your GPS has died all of a sudden.

      This would be nice if lighthouses on the whole were still manned. Most are not. Dispite the fact that lighthouse operators continued to provide emergency services to people washed ashore it was not deemed to be a good use of resources.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  27. WTF = Where TF?! by steve_vmwx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ocean Navigator carried an article a few years ago about how the number of people "lost at sea" reported by the US Coast Guard had *increased* since GPS was invented!

    The typical response to was "the batteries went flat...". Hmmmm. Point taken re postage stamps and email but this is a lives-at-stake situation.

    BTW, this is also why the US Navy still teaches celestial navigation and morse code.

    Stevo

    --
    Forget the truth. Science is fact.
    1. Re:WTF = Where TF?! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Ocean Navigator carried an article a few years ago about how the number of people "lost at sea" reported by the US Coast Guard had *increased* since GPS was invented!

      So, stupid people went out to sea unprepared, and got killed. It's not exactly a bad thing.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:WTF = Where TF?! by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      but this is a lives-at-stake situation

      Yes, but only the lives of dumb people. Smart people have backups.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    3. Re:WTF = Where TF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link!? How about correlation != causation

      Which batteries went flat? The 4 AA Duracell batteries, or the battery for the vessel's onboard power? Either way, they sure didn't adhere to the 7 P's -- "Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance"

      What kind of crap-ass "mariner" would rely on a handheld GPS unit anyways?

    4. Re:WTF = Where TF?! by enkidu · · Score: 1
      It is shocking the number of people who will take a boat out to sea with just a single mapping GPS receiver and no compass, no charts, no binoculars, no nothing. BTW, the United States Coast Guard still requires one to pass a celestial navigation exam in order to receive an oceans endorsement for one's boating license. It isn't part of a captains license anymore.

      Some people may recall an article a while back in the NYTimes which was widely disseminated stating that the US Naval Academy decided to stop teaching celestial navigation. Fortunately, this report was incorrect. Annapolis changed some of the content of the celestial navigation class to bring it up to date, but it is still a requirement at the USN Academy (as it should). In fact, one of the premier books on CN, "Marine Navigation: Piloting and Celestial and Electronic Navigation" by Richard R. Hobbs, is published by the Naval Institute Press and was recently updated in 1998 to a fourth edition.

      --

      There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
      -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
    5. Re:WTF = Where TF?! by jagapen · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Smart people have backups.
      And those backups are called lighthouses.
    6. Re:WTF = Where TF?! by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      And second (or even third) GPS receivers, and sextants, and compasses, and maps, and speed indicators, and stopwatches, and . . . .

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    7. Re:WTF = Where TF?! by Mazem · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the boating population has also increased since the time GPS was invented... Useless statistic.

    8. Re:WTF = Where TF?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the Navy stopped with the morse code a few years back.

    9. Re:WTF = Where TF?! by tgd · · Score: 1

      If you're lost at sea, you're probably not close enough to see a lighthouse anyway.

      Those lost people are the "shipwrecked off the coast" people.

  28. Netcraft confirms by Angry+Black+Man · · Score: 3, Funny

    It is official; Netcraft confirms: Lighthouses are dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered lighthouse community when IDC confirmed that the lighthouse market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all navigational assistance tools. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that lighthouses have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Lighthouses are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Ship Admin comprehensive navigational test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict the future of lighthouses. The hand writing is on the wall: lighthouses faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for lighthouses because lighthouses are dying. Things are looking very bad for lighthouses. As many of us are already aware, lighthouses continue to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. A river with no lighthosue.

    FreeLighthouse is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time lighthouse developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: lighthouses are dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    Openlighthouse leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of Openlighthouse. How many users of Netlighthouse are there? Let's see. The number of Openlighthouse versus Netlighthouse posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Netlighthouse users. lighthouse/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Netlighthouse posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of lighthouse/OS. A recent article put Freelighthouse at about 80 percent of the *lighthouse market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Freelighthouse users. This is consistent with the number of Freelighthouse Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, Freelighthouse went out of business and was taken over by lighthouseI who sell another troubled OS. Now lighthouseI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that *lighthouse has steadily declined in market share. lighthouses are very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If lighthouses are to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *lighthouse continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, lighthouses are dead.

    Fact: Lighthouses are dying

    --
    the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
    1. Re:Netcraft confirms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the Kreskin link is legitimate, you have failed.

  29. GPS in Europe by Trillian_Angel · · Score: 1

    The GLONASS system - operated out of Russia, isn't even run by the United States. NavStar, or the United States GPS system, is run by the department of defense.

    These two systems tend to not be compatible with each other too well, so if you buy a nice GPS unit in the states, you can't just plug into the Glonass system and expect it to work.

    I think it is rash that they want to close the lighthouses down, since a defunct satellite or a malfunctioning landbased correction system (Those are ground based stations that intercept GPS transmittions and make certain they are right before they hit the GPS device like the StreetPilot, Mystic, or Roadmate.) I don't know how widespread this system is in Europe, but it has to be used in the US (Also known as WAAS)

    I think it is a very bad idea they are getting rid of the lighthouses, and agree with the concerns brought up in the article... ... but lets not go bashing the US for something they aren't responsible for. GLONASS != NavStar.

    --
    -- RJ
  30. Galileo by pjay_dml · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... is what Europe came up with, as an answer to your question.

    http://www.esa.int/export/esaNA/galileo.html
    http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/gal ileo/index_en.htm

    China seems to agree

    ...but the yanks are not happy....

    1. Re:Galileo by kesuki · · Score: 4, Informative

      ahh so europe decide to launch their own gps satelite system, so that ships won't crash into the coast during a war. The US GPS system has a way of distorting data so that only US mil approved GPS devices will work, commercial GPS sytems will simply give innacurate readings, if they work at all. Frankly it makes sense to not want to be crippled in the event of a war, because Uncle sam says to take it backdoor and live ina stonage pre-GPS world because it's a WAR and the enemy could be using commercial GPS hardware. sounds like a hardware hacking project to me ;) hacking a commercial GPS device to work with military 'distorted' signals.. what with the war in iraq, there is at least one part of the world where they've got GPS set to obfuscated mode ;)

    2. Re:Galileo by mboverload · · Score: 1

      There are lots of military GPS systems floating around, any real enemy would have picked one up if they were smart. Then again, the kind of people willing to blow themselves up because some book written thosands of years ago says its ok dont strike me as the sharpest tool in the shed.

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

      Islam isnt even 1.5k years old. Or did you mean Christianity (Almost 2k), or perhaps Judaism(Over 2k)?

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

      It doesn't matter if you have a military GPS unit. You need an up-to-date encryption key.

    5. Re:Galileo by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      sounds like a hardware hacking project to me ;)

      Good luck with that. Youll need tp crack fairly strong crypto that's backed up by guys with guns. Personally, I'd rather build a cheapo cruise missile with INS and nape of the earth flight software.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    6. Re:Galileo by joshERR · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or you could just turn your unit on. The distortion was removed a few years ago. Guess you want need to hack after all

    7. Re:Galileo by forlornhope · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are right... but... not entirely right.

      Military GPS reciever != Commercial GPS reciever

      They have removed the distortion, but the commercial variants still have restrictions set on what altitude they will report position at and what velocities they will report. Last time I checked it was around 60kft and 500 knots, but I may be wrong on that account.

      --
      "We Don't Need No Truthless Heros!" - Project 86
    8. Re:Galileo by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      Don't be an idiot. Every major religion has its share of nut jobs willing to die for the cause.

    9. Re:Galileo by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      And the distortion can be added back at any time.

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

      And that makes other religions saine?

    11. Re:Galileo by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      This 'Distortion' you talk about is called Selective Availability, and was turned off by default by Clinton in the late 1990s. SA can still be turned back on globally at any time, or even targetted for specific theatres of operations (for example, Iraq). Your civilian GPS receiver still has the potential for massive inaccuracy.

    12. Re:Galileo by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      So, let me get this straight. For some reason the US is in a war on EU soil and turn their GPS into "Distorted" mode.

      This is to keep the bad guys from using the GPS signal to hit valuble targets with weapons that use the GPS signal for tracking.

      The EU will LEAVE their system on in "Very accurate mode", allowing the bad guys to switch systems and hit any target of interest. Even European.

      Ah.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    13. Re:Galileo by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      This is to keep the bad guys from using the GPS signal to hit valuble targets with weapons that use the GPS signal for tracking. The EU will LEAVE their system on in "Very accurate mode", allowing the bad guys to switch systems and hit any target of interest. Even European.

      When did "bad guys" ever use GPS to hit targets? If you're tallkng about terrorists, they prefer to hand deliver their ordnance. If military, they're not going to be stupid enough to depend on an enmemy's guidance system.

      On the other hand; how many ships would run aground or be lost due to not knowing their position? It's sensible for Europeans not to want o have the safety of their shipping (and air traffic) subject to having the plug pulled by a panicking US leadership. ("Mr President! Ralph Nader has a cruise misile targetted at your Texas ranch!" "Turn off GPS NOW!!")

    14. Re:Galileo by AB3A · · Score: 5, Informative

      Selective Availability can be circumvented with a number of interesting technologies. I've heard rumors of the use of two GPS receivers placed a known distance apart being used to cancel out the SA part of GPS.

      There are a number of differential GPS technologies which are in service right now for improving accuracy. There is also WAAS. In theory, the military can turn those off too. But in reality, Differential GPS is distributed such that someone would actually have to go to the differential transmitter site and shut it down. It's not just a matter of flipping a switch.

      What it all comes down to is that you don't have to break the SA crypto. There are other ways of improving the accuracy of your position if you really care about such things.

      Let's not forget the Russian GLONASS system, either.

      But what really killed lighthouses wasn't GPS. It was LORAN. And LORAN has been all over Europe and the Middle East for decades. It is ground based, and we "arrogant cowboys" have very little to do with it.

      I'm afraid that this is yet another case of European leftist propaganda. If it hadn't been for GPS killing off light houses, it would have been something else --and it's easy to blame the US for it. Easy, but wrong.

      --
      Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    15. Re:Galileo by slimak · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Those "kind" of people are ALMOST as bad as the type that rant and rave about the type of software someone uses on their personal computer.

      I find it intertesting how these people that go on suicide missions are generally considered crazy. To me, they seem more passionate about a belief. Lots of people say they would do anything for something they believe it. The difference is the people blowing themselves up mean it. While I do not agree with their tactics, or even their believes in most cases, its hard not to admire their conviction -- as long as its from a safe distance.

    16. Re:Galileo by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      No, but the "Crazy turban mofos" comment makes the original poster a bigot.

    17. Re:Galileo by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Well, it's like in that Al Qaeda memo, where they say they started thinking about using chem/bio-weapons after Bush told the whole world that they were planing to do it.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    18. Re:Galileo by timster · · Score: 1

      Personally, I see them as people who are afraid of the idea that the world is a complicated place and that figuring out what is right is hard to do. So they take the easy way out and view it as a place of stark us vs. them, good vs. evil simplicity.

      Conviction would be nice. It's harder, I think, to actually seek what is right, and to be afraid that you haven't found it. So to me, anyway, it's easy to not admire their conviction.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    19. Re:Galileo by afidel · · Score: 1

      Not at all, in fact there are ALREADY commercially available systems that use the timing differences between the commercial and military signals to better model ionospheric interference. Combine WAAS with such a system and you can get sub one foot accuracy in a decent amount of time (minutes). If you need higher precision you can give it more time, or use a system that uses both US and Russian systems, once the European system comes online I expect surveyor grade systems to implement a tri system setup that would allow VERY precise telemetry in a fairly quick amount of time.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:Galileo by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Not at all, in fact there are ALREADY commercially available systems that use the timing differences between the commercial and military signals to better model ionospheric interference.

      I was referring to the military signal, which is quite hard to get access to. It may have something to do with it's ability to guide a cruise missile through a window at speed.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    21. Re:Galileo by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are recievers that use the L2 signal to measure ionospheric interference. They do not decode the P (military) code, but they don't need to, they can gain almost all of the positional accuracy gains of the military units just by measuring the shift in the L2 band carrier signal. Sure you can't use it at Mach 2, but aquisition times for modern dual frequency recievers is acceptable for just about any civilian application.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    22. Re:Galileo by raddan · · Score: 1

      I'll buy the argument that this article is simply being alarmist, but leftist? How so? Last time I checked, wanting things to stay the old way was being a conservative, thus, to the right. Your post was interesting until that point.

  31. Beacons of warning by kd5ujz · · Score: 1
    critics question whether the new system is reliable and safe enough to warrant the closure of these historical beacons of safety.


    I thought light houses usualy signaled hazards such as rocks, currents, and most inportantly, land.
    --
    -William
    God is everything science has yet to explain.
  32. This will work great! by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

    And for the people who want to do it, we'll put them in cars, outfitted with the latest in radar-avoidance technology, and GPS. We'll then put that car on the autobahn at 100 mph (or, since this is Germany, its equivalent in kph), and take out the steering wheel, accelerator, and brake pedal. These will be obsolete and just add to the cost of manufacturing the car, and since the reliable new digital...

    Oh? What's that? That's a bad idea, because...sometimes electronic systems fail? Well, none of us users of a computer knew about that!

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  33. Combine the technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Install GPS stations in lighthouses. That way in case of technological apocalypse, the backups will remain.

    This is exactly what happened to the Pyramids, btw.

  34. sextant? abacus? by slew · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know how most of you are all fro new technology, but we need these failsafes. What happens when your computer fails or your keyboard, mouse or display systems are no longer functioning. It's far too dangerous in my opinion to allow sliderules and other (now secondary) computation aids (like abacuses) fall to the wayside b/c of newer technology.

    I propose that every computer science major be forced to learn how to use a slide rule and an abacus...

    And we should require every gps unit to be equiped with a pendulum and a sextant as backup...

    Uhm, yeah, right ;^)

  35. Damn. by msauve · · Score: 0

    Ever since these "automobiles" have come about, there are no hitching posts in front of the local bars anymore. Seriously, I hardly expected a Luddite article to be of interest on /.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  36. And just WHO is complaining? by snStarter · · Score: 2, Funny

    The pirates who build false lighthouses to lure ships onto a lea shore!

    Piracy is never far away!

    1. Re:And just WHO is complaining? by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not piracy, it's copyright inf- er, sorry, reflex...

  37. As a boater I can tell you by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lighthouses have been obsolete since radar came to be. GPS is hardly the starting point for this.

    As a boater I can tell you that neither radar nor GPS makes lighthouses obsolete. Nor did LORAN before them.

    Sure, if you've got it and its working you can tell where you are. Within a football field if selective-availability is on, much better if it's off.

    And the big commercial ships have them and they're usually working.

    And the small commercial ships in well-to-do countries (like fishing boats for instance) may have them and they may be working.

    And the more well-to-do pleasure-boaters may have them and they may be working.

    But there are a LOT of boats out there that DON'T have them. The BULK of them, if you're talking numbers.

    Fishermen may not have them - and may have other things to deal with than watching a screen. Most pleasure boats are small fry, not millionaires' giant toys. (A small ocean-capable cruising sailboat, for instance, may be considerably less expensive than an RV of a similar size.)

    Even if they have them, any bets whether they're working when you're coming in after a month at sea, two years after they were purchased? Salt spray is HELL on electronics, and gets into everything.

    And even when they do have them, and they are operating, a boater may think he's far out to sea when he's actually almost onto a hidden hazard, and not be looking. (A lighted nav marker, among other things, is the idiot-light of boating.)

    Saying GPS obsoletes lighthouses is like saying GPS-based navigation systems for cars obsolete stop signs, curve signs, and the blinking lights associated with them.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:As a boater I can tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make gps out to be expensive and unreliable. Neither is true.

      For $100 - $200, anyone can buy a gps unit that will be more than capable of piloting any boat around, always work, and run on either plugged in power indefinately, or common AA batteries, upwards to 20 hours continuously on a set.

      Slat spray? Aren't you reaching here?

      Selective availablility was on from the start of GPS until 2000, when it was turned off, and I don't believe it's ever been turned on again. Even on the remote possibility that SA happened to be somehow turned on again, how is seeing a lighthouse on the horizon going to help you more than knowing your position within 200 yards?

      pleasure-boaters may have them and they may be working

      what do you mean "May be working"? If it's on it's working, plain and simple. Your lighthouse "may be working"

    2. Re:As a boater I can tell you by MoonChildCY · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am not sure about this, but the lighthouse could be very useful in a GPS system.

      Out-of-the-box GPS has horrible accuracy for travelling into dangerous waters. But if there is a differential GPS correction set up on the lighthouse, then the accuracy will drop down to centimeters (cm). And a lighthouse would be the perfect place to set this up. Clear view of the sky, no buildings obstructing it, on the edge of land (as close as you can get on a boat) and already located in areas that need great accuracy.

      Obsolete in the older sense of beaming visible light, quite useful in beaming corrections to a GPS unit (if equiped to receive them).

    3. Re:As a boater I can tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what do you mean "May be working"?

      Ignore him, he's being a silly idiot. There's always that Radio Shack halfway between Florida and the Bahamas where you can buy new batteries, and the new models have the new "boomerang mode" where they come right back to your hand after you've dropped it.

    4. Re:As a boater I can tell you by ad0gg · · Score: 1
      Most boats I see going out of the local harbor have Radar. Everyone I know who fishes has GPS, since your not going to find fish unless you have a handy sheet of gps coords of rock piles, or other structures that contain fish. Lot of boats even have dual gps, just in case one breaks What you don't see is people with real life maps. Everyone uses GPS combined together autonav, they don't even need to steer the boat. Select a way point, engage the autopilot, turn the radar warning on. I even think the new gps systems will interface with radar to navigate around other boats. Talk about lazyiness.

      I don't anyone who would dare go out into the ocean without GPS. I think you look at the fatalities, they've probably gone down after GPS became common. There's tons of hazardous areas for boats that aren't marked by light houses. How are you going to navigate US waters especially since there is lot of offlimit areas(military) without GPS? The harbor I go out of is 1 mile away from Port Hueneme Harbor which is military base guarded by troops manning zodiac rafts and what look like to be surface to surface missles located on their beach. I'd rather not get lost and end up there by mistake. Or even worse end up in Missile test range during a missile test and having ICBM falling on the boat i'm fishing on would make me sad.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    5. Re:As a boater I can tell you by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      >For $100 - $200, anyone can buy a gps unit
      Yes, but do marine GPSs need to be certified? The same thing is happening in aviation. ie, the gov't is looking at shutting down some of the current navigational systems (VORs, MDBs etc) as GPS becomes more popular. However, the big push against this is that this means that the hundreds of thousands of private pilots have navigational equipment that uses older technology, and regulations require that a GPS be certified by the FAA before you can use it as a primary navigational aid. Handheld units start around $500, but most are not certified for navigation. Panel mounted GPS units can cost from $3000 to $11,000 or more.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:As a boater I can tell you by kelk1 · · Score: 1

      If you are not sure, then do not post, or at least do not spread FUD.

      "Out-of-the-box GPS has horrible accuracy for travelling into dangerous waters."

      You must be looking in the wrong box. An autonomous position is today well within 10 meters (50ft). Seems pretty good for a boat.

      "Obsolete in the older sense of beaming visible light, quite useful in beaming corrections to a GPS unit"

      Yes, the USCG have been using land stations for ages but, 1, it does not have to be a lighthouse (the next big hotel is probably a better) and 2, in most cases, radio waves will not go much further than the horizon. This is why they are now sent from augmentation satellites (WAAS, EGNOS, etc.).

      That will easily narrow down your position to 5 meters, anywhere in the world and you do not even need a separate radio.

      Centimeter-level accuracy is indeed possible with differential positioning, but not further than a dozen cliks, and I doubt this is a useful technology aboard a 20' sailboat.

    7. Re:As a boater I can tell you by mboverload · · Score: 1
      2003 called, they want their $500 GPS units back.

      Man, where have you been? You can pick them up for 100 bucks these days.

    8. Re:As a boater I can tell you by klipsch_gmx · · Score: 1

      Within a football field if selective-availability is on, much better if it's off.

      Selective availability has been turned off, permanently, for years now.

    9. Re:As a boater I can tell you by tylernt · · Score: 1

      Were you not listening? The certification process for IFR instruments is horrendously long and expensive. *Flight certified* GPS units do NOT cost $100. Consumer-grade, mass-produced cheap flimsy GPS units cost $100. You want to take a ride on an airliner on a dark and stormy night, betting your LIFE and the lives of 150 other passengers on a $100 GPS unit from Wal-Mart?

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    10. Re:As a boater I can tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much worse is that than someone relying on a lighthouse whose operator hasn't been sober since 1967?

    11. Re:As a boater I can tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the lighthouse guy has to do is make sure that either the light is on or at least the lighthouse is on fire. Can you guarantee your AA batteries will run the GPS receiver for a 14 hour intercontinental flight, sober or not? I suppose you could pull over somewhere and stop to change the batteries.

    12. Re:As a boater I can tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      An autonomous position is today well within 10 meters (50ft).

      Actually, ten meters is about 33 feet.

    13. Re:As a boater I can tell you by po8 · · Score: 1

      When I was commercial fishing on the Oregon Coast in the early 1980s, it was quite rare for a commercial boat above about 20' not to have both radar and LORAN. Our family's certainly did: I have to say that we never paid attention to lighthouses. Blinking nav buoys, sure, but lighthouses? If it was dark, and the weather was bad, and you saw the lighthouse, you were probably already way too close to trouble :-).

    14. Re:As a boater I can tell you by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it wouldn't really matter if it cost 10k for an airliner when you look at the total cost of an airliner.

      that said, the great parent just doesn't sound like a real boater or then he's just boating in his own private little world with his little boat and navigating by his eyes mostly.

      fisherman have used this tech among the first - and i'd like to see him position himself better than within a football field by just watching a lighthouse.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re:As a boater I can tell you by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Very few lighthouses are actually manned ( at least in the UK ) I vaguely remember hearing that in fact all of them are remotely operated now.

    16. Re:As a boater I can tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct. Reduced 15 m -> 10 m, but forgot to convert it.

    17. Re:As a boater I can tell you by stridebird · · Score: 1
      I even think the new gps systems will interface with radar to navigate around other boats. Talk about lazyiness.

      Not so. Modern boat electronics will allow cool stuff like overlay of radar with GPS chartplotters but you are taking it a step too far when you suggest the boat's systems could then make a decision to alter course without human intervention.

      Another system that has recently been introduced - manadatory on all commercial shipping over a certain tonnage - is AIS. Automatic ID system, whereby a vessel transmits a sentance of data containing it's ID, heading, speed and so forth. This might, theoretically lead to the possibility of automated helm instructions as the system would get much more reliable information about the another ships movements, but even then you would have to
      1) ensure (mandate) that ALL vessels at sea were using active AIS
      2) include some kind of inter-vessel negotiation so that simultaneous automatic helm instructions did not result in a secondary (and closer) collision situation

    18. Re:As a boater I can tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Selective availability has been turned off,
      True.

      permanently,
      Not true.

      for years now.
      Since May of 2000.

    19. Re:As a boater I can tell you by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1


      Except that:
      1) The beam of light the lighthouses currently, and for centuries, send out have the same limitations that you are complaining about for the DGPS signal.
      2) The "next big hotel" is most probably located along that nice sandy gently sloping beach, not at the edge of the very dangerous and sharp rocks.
      3) In a storm getting a lock on a WAAS, EGNOS, or even standard GPS satellite can be a real problem. It would be much easier to get a lock on a DGPS signal from a terrestrial based location, such as a *gasp* lighthouse.

      And as the GP pointed out, the fact that it is not available miles at sea is irrelevant. If you're in a storm, no GPS lock, and not sure how far, or in what direction, you've been blown, then having your map suddenly light up with an accurate position 5 miles from the rocks, is much nicer than hearing the sound of them tearing through your hull. Almost as nice as *gasp* suddenly having the beam of a lighthouse shine through the night and the fog.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    20. Re:As a boater I can tell you by twosmokes · · Score: 1

      since your not going to find fish unless you have a handy sheet of gps coords of rock piles, or other structures that contain fish

      It's a good thing we got that GPS thing taken care of before we invented fishing.

    21. Re:As a boater I can tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, if you've got it and its working you can tell where you are. Within a football field if selective-availability is on, much better if it's off.

      I work as a GPS contractor to the military. I am not sure where you have been for nearly the past 5 years, but SA (Selective Availability) has been turned off and there are no plans to turn it back on. In fact, the newest block of satellites that are scheduled to go up in 2006 and I believe it will have another, if not 2 civilian signals on it to filter out the ionospheric noise.

    22. Re:As a boater I can tell you by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      A $300 map-enhanced GPS in a ziploc bag is more than adequate. It's not right to punish everyone else because some boaters can't be bothered to check their instrumentation. They also have waterproof versions that are intended for marine use - rinse them once in a while and you'll be fine as long as it's not attached to your deck or something.

      I have nothing against lighted buoys; maybe we could even make some that charge by rocking, if they don't exist already. Or, maybe they could use tidal generators or something :) But lighthouses are probably unnecessary. Anyone who can afford to maintain any oceangoing boat can afford a GPS unit, and moreover has an excellent reason to have one - they help not only near coastlines, but when you're near no coastline, and you can't see the sky through cloud cover. They also work in the fog during the day, when a lighthouse doesn't. If every car (and motorcycle) owner had a good reason to have GPS, then maybe we could eliminate road signs, and replace them with a HUD or other display that would tell you what you want to know. Road signs have lots of problems, and I am looking forward to the day when road signs have a digital component that announces what they say, so that if you can't see the damn thing (as is common in inclement weather, when signs are old and poorly maintained, or when passing a semi) you can still find out what it has to day.

      It really doesn't matter what kind of craft you have, or what price range you are in, GPS is CHEAP. It's not like LORAN, which has much less uptake (for obvious reasons). And, even if selective availability is turned on, GPS provides enough accuracy to avoid a coastline, so it even works in situations where lighthouses don't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:As a boater I can tell you by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Selective availability has been turned off, [...]

      And either selective availablity or local jamming will be turned on the first time somebody uses GPS to fly a cruise missile in the president's window and land it on his desk (or something equivalent).

      Probably local jamming or some variant, since differential GPS enables the land-on-the-desk stunt even with selective availablity turned on. (That WAS what it was invented for, after all.)

      IMHO differential GPS is the real reason it was turned off. SA was no longer performing its intended mission, while SA was making GPS less useful and/or more expensive for the civilian infrastructure.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  38. GPS does have its bugs by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

    Once, according to my GPS I was doing 500km/h somewhere in the northern hemisphere. I was actually sitting on the top of a big hill. Resetting the GPS unit didn't change anything. I checked with a friend (we were hiking) and his GPS was doing the same thing. Maybe we were recording a de-orbit of one of the satelites.

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    1. Re:GPS does have its bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most likely not. More likely, the errors you saw were caused by deficiencies that are common to cheap, commercially produced receivers that you buy at the local sporting goods store.

      In any case, during disposal ops, the NAV mission broadcasts are switched off. That is, there is no broadcast containing anything that your handheld would use to compute position-velocity states. In general, de-orbits are planned events inwhich the health bits of the satellite in question are set appropriately. You receiver is programmed to ignore satellites that have poor health status.
      Calculating position and velocity is a function of your receiver. Your receiver has a software filter that is very finicky. Due to one or more errors (insufficient/poor data to provide a good convergence, a local receiver clock drift that was unaccounted for, etc.) you probably got a bad solution.

      In general, better receivers do not have these deficiencies. Nicer receivers have better antennas, more stable local clocks, better Kalman filter implementations, better environmental corrections algorithms (multipath, ionospherics), etc. Most seaworthy ships have nicer receivers than you or I purchase. Additionally ships generally keep their receivers on continuously giving them better previous state data to feed into their Kalman filter.

      Don't generalize the problems encountered by small receivers to those of more expensive, professional receivers.

      If anything, you receiver should not have even been reporting 500 km/h. It really should have been reporting a problem converging on a good solution.

    2. Re:GPS does have its bugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god! Someone that knows what they are talking about!

      I'm going to bed.

  39. Preserving lighthouses by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    This is an issue dear to my heart. As an avid lighthouse photographer (http://www.pbase.com/ldkronos/lighthouses)
    I really hate to see these things being abandoned. I think their different styles and architectures are quite interesting. However, some of them are beginning to disappear. Non profit organizations have formed to try to preserve and restore the bigger and more popular ones, but then there are those that have just been left for their own, several of which have collapsed or been torn down and replaced with simple (boring, IMHO) light beacons (for example, this lighthouse:
    http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBLIGHTHOUSES /sanduskypierhead.JPG
    has been replaced by this:
    http://www.us-lighthouses.com/displaypage.php?Ligh tID=138
    )

    1. Re:Preserving lighthouses by clean_stoner · · Score: 1

      Is that the lighthouse from The Ring?

      --

      Sigs are for the weak.

    2. Re:Preserving lighthouses by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      No, that lighthouse was on a cliff (this is just on a breakwater). Not sure which one it was.

  40. Lighthouses still have their uses by OneArmedMan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    US Ship: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision.

    CND reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

    US Ship: This is the Captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert your course.

    CND reply: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course!

    US Ship: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA*, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!

    CND reply: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

    1. Re:Lighthouses still have their uses by Jerf · · Score: 4, Informative

      You lose big Karma points for posting a Snopes story as truth.

      Snopes... if it sounds too good or too funny to be true, you should probably check Snopes. Otherwise, those of us who have will mercilessly mock you.

    2. Re:Lighthouses still have their uses by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Did he say it was true?

      AFAIK far most jokes on Slashdot aren't marked as such, unless the poster thinks people won't get it.

      --
    3. Re:Lighthouses still have their uses by Jerf · · Score: 1

      By including details, which happen to be common to other tellings of the story, yes. The USS Coral Sea, a real ship, never had any such encounter.

  41. Lighthouses will never be replaced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    After being a quartermaster in the US Navy and navigating a large ship through some particular odd parts of the world where the GPS saturation is not enough to use, so that it is as reliable enough to pinpoint within a meter, I can say that lighthouse triangulation is way more accurate, and electronics will eventually fail. The Navy still uses sextants just incase all power is lost and there is no land available.

    1. Re:Lighthouses will never be replaced by Vitamin+P · · Score: 0

      You say the Navy still uses sextants in case all power is lost and no land availiable. What I want to know it is 0300 local time and the weather is dense fog just how in Davy Jones locker is a sextant going to help?

    2. Re:Lighthouses will never be replaced by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Helps when visibility improves?

      Just because at a particular time something (e.g. a brain for instance) isn't useful doesn't mean it's not worth keeping it around.

      Doh.

      Anyway typically if all power is lost a modern Navy ship wouldn't be going anywhere fast (hopefully not anyway...), so you'd wait for conditions to improve or power to be restored. If the situation warrants it, then you might get on a lifeboat with a paddle and the sextant (and GPS unit if you have one ;) ).

      --
    3. Re:Lighthouses will never be replaced by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      How do you get ~1m resolution with triangulation? laser alignment? I dont belive optical alignment would get you ~1m resolution.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
  42. psuedolites by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... or more relevant... pseudolites. These are pseudo GPS satellites that can be used to add more "satellites" to the GPS solution.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:psuedolites by ToteAdler · · Score: 2, Informative

      They already do this, not with light houses because there's no point really, but its called DGPS, Differential GPS. The Coast Guard operates it.

    2. Re:psuedolites by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Range would be a big issue. From the Clarke band a geo-synch satellite can cover nearly half of the planet. From the top of a lighthouse the range is what? A hundred mile radius?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    3. Re:psuedolites by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      a hundred miles could easily be all that a small lighthouse DGPS would need, i mean it would be there mostly to protect small boats and such that are near shore (hence 100 miles would probably be enough) the larger boats would definately benefit from it too

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

      If he's talking about what I think he's talking about, the main point of these things is to put them in cities to give extra accuracy.

    5. Re:psuedolites by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I believe you are talking about WAAS points.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    6. Re:psuedolites by EvanED · · Score: 1

      So what are you gonna do, crash on the shoreline 100 miles out? And what's the range on the actual lamp? Probably 100 miles on a good, clear day.

      They would be added for extra accuracy, accuracy that for most purposes is only important when you are near shore.

    7. Re:psuedolites by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Why go to all of the trouble of making a new system when the existing one already works better?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    8. Re:psuedolites by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
      DGPS does not do this. This is not what the coast guard operate.

      The coast guard send out GPS correction data on their radio beacons. This improves the positions, but does not replace satellites. That is, you still need sufficient satellites to get a GPS position to use the radio beacon correction info.

      Pseudolites, on the other hand, look just like satellites as fas as GPS is concerned.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
    9. Re:psuedolites by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I would argue that it doesn't work better, just well. The lighthouse can't help automated navigation systems, it can't display your location on a map, and it can't tell you where you are when there isn't a lighthouse nearby.

      That said, it would be a very nice backup system for when a ship's GPS goes out, or for boats that don't have it, and I don't think that getting rid of lighthouses is a good idea.

    10. Re:psuedolites by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I would argue that it doesn't work better, just well. The lighthouse can't help automated navigation systems, it can't display your location on a map, and it can't tell you where you are when there isn't a lighthouse nearby.

      No, GPS is the system (US Or EU version) that we already have that works better than a lighthouse based GPS-work a like that someone else here proposed.

      GPS can tell you all of those things. If lighthouses are obsolete, fine keep them as historical landmarks. Don't make up asinine pseudo-tech just to pretend that they're still more useful than they are.

      That said, it would be a very nice backup system for when a ship's GPS goes out, or for boats that don't have it, and I don't think that getting rid of lighthouses is a good idea.

      No, it's stupid to spend money to develop a new system(Lighthouse-mounted GPS transponders) that doesn't work as well as the old one(GPS).

      If the primary GPS unit goes out, use the secondary. If you don't have GPS why in the hell would you buy a receiver for an inferior system that has roughly the same cost?

      Like I said, they're historical landmarks and should be kept as such, but technology has obviated them.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    11. Re:psuedolites by EvanED · · Score: 1

      No, GPS is the system (US Or EU version) that we already have that works better than a lighthouse based GPS-work a like that someone else here proposed.

      The "lighthouse based GPS-work a like" system is an adjunct to GPS as we have it now. The problem is that until you get to military-grade GPS equipment, the accuracy could be off by over 50 feet even on a good day. When you're motoring into shore, this can be significant; a lot of change in the depth of the seabed can occur over that distance.

      The transmitters that would be placed along the shore would augment the satellite transmissions. If you are near such a transmitter, you can get the accuracy down to a couple meters instead of a couple dozen. It's called differential GPS.

      GPS can tell you all of those things.

      I know... those were listed as advantages to GPS...

  43. Yep! by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    Which is why the Navy still teachs you how to navigate using an astrolabe or the constellations.

    What's that? They don't?

    I guess if an EMP frotzes the electronics on their aircraft carrier, they'll have bigger things to worry about. Like what'll happen to the nuclear reactor with all the control systems fried. That's assuming they were far enough away from the blast to survive the nastiness that you usually get from one of those. I doubt a modern ship could operate under those conditions anyway.

    Anything less than that (Navigation system got infected with crapware?) I'm sure you could find 1 guy in your 1500 some odd crewmembers that has a portable GPS unit and you could find your location on paper charts or something. It'll give you something to do while you're flogging the bozo who was browsing the web on the navigation computer...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Yep! by laughingcoyote · · Score: 1

      That's as may be, now what about the pleasure boater out on his sailboat, -relying- on his personal GPS? Or a smaller fisherman?

      Oops! It got wet. Tends to happen on the water.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    2. Re:Yep! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Which is why the Navy still teachs you how to navigate using an astrolabe or the constellations.

      Wouldn't that be a sextant?

      Obligatory funny astrolabe tech support link.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    3. Re:Yep! by valkraider · · Score: 1

      Any dumbass who is navigating a boat with a GPS unit that is not waterproof deserves to drown.

    4. Re:Yep! by Jeff+Albertson · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that the kind of portable GPS unit that typically gets used on small craft should cease to be produced to be waterproof?

      Would it really save that much money to stop putting them in waterproof cases?

      --
      the namespace grows ever more crowded.
  44. The prudent mariner by rwebb · · Score: 4, Informative

    The prudent mariner will not rely solely on any single aid to navigation.
    Natianiel Bowditch (as best as I can recall the quote)

    Among many other reasons for retaining fixed aids to navigation, the GPS system uses the WGS-84 datum. Many charts, in particular many harbor charts, still use local datam references.

    Check with the former Commanding Officer and Navigator of the USS LaMoure County for their opinion regarding over-reliance on GPS positions with respect to local chart datums.

    Visual and radar piloting have the benefit of being independent of the local coordinate system. Visual aids to navigation, in particular, may seem to be "obsolete" but they are wonderfully helpful in real world piloting situations.

    Been there, done that, didn't get relieved for cause.

    --
    Trusted by cats.
    1. Re:The prudent mariner by Riddlefox · · Score: 1

      My little Etrex can handle many different map datum references (even custom ones!). A GPS receiver designed for maritime use really ought to come with a suitable datum, else it's just poorly designed.

    2. Re:The prudent mariner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and I'd worry about the over-reliance on power in boats as well. What ever happened to the manual oars on the viking ships.

    3. Re:The prudent mariner by tyndyll · · Score: 1

      Check with the former Commanding Officer and Navigator of the USS LaMoure County for their opinion regarding over-reliance on GPS positions with respect to local chart datums.

      Similarily, how many wannabe mountaineers have ventured into the hills tooled up with their GPS and no map because they don't need that tatty paper thing anymore.

      My own personal inclination is that having the "old skool" skills is just as important as having the nice kit. Map reading is pretty much essential when stuck in the middle of nowhere when your GPS goes to electronics heaven. And sod's law dictate these things will fail when you need them the most.

      Anyway lighthouses look real pretty anyway

      --
      Morale seems good, considering, although high spirits are just no substitute for eight hundred rounds a minute
    4. Re:The prudent mariner by Tassach · · Score: 1
      The grandparent post wasn't about "wannabes", it was about SEASONED PROFESSIONALS (career US Navy Officers) who managed to run a fully-equipped and functional warship aground due to an over-reliance on fancy tech instead of using their eyes and practicing good old-fashioned seamanship.

      GPS is a navigational AIDE. It should augment, not replace, traditional methods. Redundancy is a Good Thing when lives are on the line.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    5. Re:The prudent mariner by Webmoth · · Score: 1
      "The prudent mariner will not rely solely on any single aid to navigation."

      The point is well made. Just as a spelunker never enters a cave without three independent sources of light (usually electric, flame, and chemical), a mariner should never enter the water without at least three independent methods of navigation.

      GPS is wonderful as a general positioning aid, but it cannot tell you the location of shifting shoals. It cannot tell you the location of another craft. Also, if its datum is different from the map you are referencing, you just might find that the center of the channel is in the middle of dry land.

      Except for dead reckoning, no navigational aid has ever become obsolete. As new ones come along, they simply provide an additional point of reference you may use to be able to more accurately determine your location. They don't obsolete each other; they complement each other.

      Think of the modes of failure:

      GPS: Battery failure. The military can turn off selective availability. the military can turn off public availability. Failure of your receiver.

      LORAN: may not be available where you are. Failure of your receiver.

      RADAR: The only navaid other than your own eyes that will tell you where other craft are. Can be easily misadjusted. Negatively impacted by rain and waves. Failure of receiver.

      LIGHTHOUSES: They don't tell you where YOU are, they tell you where THEY are. You need a minimum of two known lights (some would say three) and local charts to triangulate your position. Lighthouses, buoys, and other local markers can become damaged by severe storms, earthquakes, erosion, and vandalism.

      CHARTS: become obsolete as local conditions change. Can be torn.

      COMPASS: Subject to local magnetic disturbances and polar drift.

      SEXTANT/CELESTIAL NAVIGATION: Doesn't work in cloudy conditions.

      DEAD RECKONING: Notoriously inaccurate, more likely to leave you dead than reckoning.

      Best to have as many as possible.

      --
      Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
  45. Somehow... by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

    ...I doubt the pyramids were filled with GPS to prevent their obscelesence.

    1. Re:Somehow... by daruku · · Score: 1

      Naw the pyramids were designed with UPS.

  46. Nostalgia by pjay_dml · · Score: 1

    Funny how peole love anything that is old.

    I bet ya, in your "preservation efforts", you will meet many people, that get just as upset, about windturbin installations, with the argument "of ruining the landscape with phalluses".

    Though I agree, there is something romantic about a lighting house, wouldn't mind living in one. Imagine the views....

    1. Re:Nostalgia by Jeff+Albertson · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that in their day, lighthouses spoiled all kinds of coastline views. They were probably seen as a blight for all sorts of aesthetic reasons when first built.

      --
      the namespace grows ever more crowded.
  47. Snopes says no by Rangsk · · Score: 1

    Though humorous, this is a fictitious story.

    http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthse.htm

    --
    "Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose." --Douglas Adams
  48. a related quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Thomas Edison invented electric light today, Dan Rather would report it on CBS News as "candle making industry threatened".

    -Newt Gingrich

  49. Ummm, BIG question: by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

    A while back, a plan was exposed regarding how the DOD or DHS would shut down the GPS network of satellites. I don't recall where the artical was (I believe it was in Slashdot) or when it appeared (I'm guessing within the last 6-12 months).

    Anyway, my question is this: How do they propose to maintain shipping safety, by dropping the sole navigational fallback in the event that such an event takes place?

    Also, don't lighthouses occasionally perform the duty of keeping watch for any suspicious activities, such as smuggling drugs/contraband/immigrants (and mind you, since it's the rage, terrorists)?

    Or maybe my memory's a little rusty on that, I may have watched "The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming" too many times.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:Ummm, BIG question: by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      *Whoops, quick side note, the DOD/DHS would shut down the GPS network of satellites in the event of a terrorist attack. My bad for not double checking my post.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  50. Missiles... by Rand310 · · Score: 1

    If GPS is safe enough for guided missiles, then it's safe enough for me...

    Is GPS accuracy supposed to be measured in lives saved, or lives lost per error in calculation?

  51. Just be glad they aren't white. by copponex · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What are a few thousand families under the rubble? Collateral! They aren't white so the press doesn't care. Funny thing, here in the states -- same damn thing for two hundred years running.

    I nearly fell out of my chair in hysterics when GW called the anti-abortion people and thanked them for "celebrating a culture of life." Ha! He celebrates his culture of life with tanks and M-16s. Sweet lord.

    GW! Bringing you liberty and death, since 2001.

    1. Re:Just be glad they aren't white. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      GW! Bringing you liberty and death, since 2001.

      Amazing that there were no wars anywhere in the world until Bush came on the scene in 2001.

    2. Re:Just be glad they aren't white. by smaug195 · · Score: 1

      See, this is stupidthink. I cannot call it liberal, as it is giving liberalism a bad name. Bombs fell, bombs are targeted so to mimimize casualties as much as possible in a war zone.

      Off course all this anti-war talk (I'm not so much anti-war, as against being lied to) seems to center on a false ideal. That the Iraqi's really were better off under Sadam. I mean save all this "We are really horrible stuff". We don't you know, gas people.

      Before you even say anything, yes we supported them. The alternative was what exactly? Support the leadership that took Americans hostage, and constantly threatened it's neighbors? I'm not proud of our past on the Middle East, but doesn't give us an even greater moral perogative to right the wrongs we did?

  52. All your eggs in one basket... by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One word:

    Fallback.

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
  53. How Reliable? by bStrom · · Score: 1

    I've had to pilot a boat that the GPS went out on, due to a manufacturing defect. Basically, the screen just went blank. We got home, but it was not fun.

    --
    Try eMusic. DRM free, legal, MP3 downloads.
    1. Re:How Reliable? by sandman935 · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly the same reason I still carry a compass in addition to the GPS receiver when I'm backpacking.

      --

      Defecation occurs.
    2. Re:How Reliable? by HBI · · Score: 1

      I was taught how to navigate a boat the old fashioned way, and I still remember how.

      It's like calculators and simple math. You should know how to do it if the batteries die.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  54. What..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, oooops. My mistake, I thought that said GPL. Thought it might be some strange kind of FUD.
    My eyes are going funny, my brain's stopped working and I'm feeling tired. I really need to get some more coffee.

  55. From a practical standpoint? by Snar+Bloot · · Score: 1
    Perhaps. All old technology is ultimately replaced with new technology. But we all probably have notepads around to scribble things on instead of typing every last little note to ourselves on the computer.

    Besides the places where it may still be useful to be able to tell at a glance where a point or rocky shoreline is, without looking at a screen or GPS, you've got the obvious "tradition" and historical value of most of these light houses.

    Where I live, we have all these fancy satellite things and infrared imaging to keep watch on forest fires. But they still man a few old fire towers during the height of the fire season. And the ones that aren't manned are generally still preserved.

    Most places probably have a Historical Society or something similar that would prevent the destruction of the lighthouses, even if the economics of the situation dictated that the light was "turned off". I have a summer home that they won't even let me put a metal roof on because it would change the nature of a "historical building".

    I submit that GPSr will only serve to modernize that type of navigation. I'm not seeing that GPSr mounted in vehicles will ever do away with street signs...seems like kind of the same thing to me.

    1. Re:From a practical standpoint? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Some lighthouses are relatively spacious, and if you can take the works out of the lamphouse, you have a great deck, with a 360 degree view. Lighthouses also tend to be pretty far away from other developed property, especially when they are out on a basalt point, and they *ALL* are oceanfront property.

      All this adds up to a high dollar piece of real estate, especially with the historic value of the property. They go for that sort of thing in New England and the Oregon Coast, and I know there are also plenty of Germans who feel the same.

      These lighthouses haven't had terribly great value in their original purpose for years, but they are inherently valuable nonetheless.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  56. every time you buy a GPS unit... by Jrod5000+at+RPI · · Score: 5, Funny

    you kill a lighthouse!

    Please, think of the historical beacons of safety.

  57. EVIL by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 1
    Of course, because everything having to do with the US military is EVVIILL.

    We'll just flick the lights on and off and see if those crazy Germans run into stuff!

    WWII ended 50 years ago... Unless they start hiding terrorist camps in the Black Forest, they probably have nothing to worry about.

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

      Are you on crack?

      Or just another Republican with a stick up his butt?

      The American Government has, and will again, compromise the accuracy of GPS in times of American-involved conflict. They have stated they will do so whenever it is in their best interests - regardless of how it affects the rest of the world.

      It is clear to anyone with a basic grounding in logic that the current GPS system is therefore not trustworthy (especially for any sovereign countries not strongly affiliated with the USA).

      Unfortunately, the current Galileo proposal has already been compromised by American threats, to allow Americans to also jam it as they see fit.

      The solution will probably come when the Chinese withdraw from Galileo to pursue their own satellite system that is unjammable, followed by an Indian system - with more than two systems in place, redundancy of signals will ensure that there will be no point in jamming the US system or Galileo since there will be accurate real-time alternatives.

      And hopefully, this round of posturing will end.

    2. Re:EVIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, you DO know that Germany has stronger ties to 9/11 than Saddam Hussein ever did, don't you? You know, Hamburg cell, Mohammed Atta and all?

      And the Germans also used chemical weapons against their own people 60-odd years ago before they got rid of all of their chemical weapons and stopped being a threat to anyone, very much like the Iraqis used chemical weapons against their own people 20-odd years ago before they got rid of all of their chemical weapons and stopped being a threat to anyone.

      So really what's saving the Germans from a US invasion (or, ahem, act of pre-emptive self-defense) isn't lack of terrorist camps in the Black Forest...it's lack of oil UNDER the Black Forest.

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

      Why jam the signal when you can just destroy the satellite.

      Would that be piracy, in space?

    4. Re:EVIL by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      Don't be a wank. There is no reason to spread this FUD.

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

      I'm sorry, was there something factually inaccurate in my post? Please be more specific than "wank". It makes it appear as if you're engaging in name-calling due to lack of ability to argue with my facts.

    6. Re:EVIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of course. The Chinese (highest rate of capital punishment in the modern world, and no freedom of the press) are the answer to American tyranny...

      Of course. Everyone who supports the American military, which fought both Facism and Communism, is on crack.

      Why didn't everyone see this all before?

    7. Re:EVIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American military also fought democracy in Chile and El Salvador (by serving as military advisors to the tyrants), and recently aided the overthrow of democracy in Haiti.

      Since the American military doesn't seem to choose its opponents based on political ideology, I guess all you can gather from this is that they like to fight non-Americans.

      Incidentally, America didn't give a crap about Fascism (Roosevelt did, but even he didn't have the political power to push America into the war). We let it run roughshod over Europe for years without so much as a "now play nice over there". If the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor, Europe would be speaking German and we wouldn't really have cared less.

  58. GPS is innocent! by amightywind · · Score: 1

    You hardly need to blame GPS for the demise of the lighthouse. More culpable was that great innovation, the harbor buoy. This is a worthless story even for slashdot.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  59. I've always said... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    ... If you find yourself in a world without calculators, you'd better know how to kill things with a pointy stick.

    Modify to suit. Think about it, it applies lighthouses too.

    If you can navigate with GPS, Radar, sonar, etc. You probably don't belong on the open ocean. Certainly not in anything big enough to be dangerous to the rest of us.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  60. Sure, buddy. by nsaneinside · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Somehow, I doubt you were filled with brains to preserve your intelligence.
    I find two (out of two) things wrong with your statement. One: Egyptian pyramids were pathways to the heavens for, and monuments to, the pharoahs who were buried in them. They were not in any way related to lighthouses. Two: Last I checked, the Egyptian pyramids date back, oh, several thousand years or so. The first GPS satellite was launched in 1978.

  61. Yes, Jesus Would Us GPS by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yes. Jesus was well aware of "high technology" like GPS. While quite a few early modern societies like the Romans and Egyptians didn't fully understand who the "Gods" where, they did understand that they where extraterrestrial, and today we call these non-Earthlings, aliens. Jesus knew this because he is the Son of God. So, yes, he would us GPS, and in fact, does so everyday.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Yes, Jesus Would Us GPS by GROOFY · · Score: 0

      What are you babbling about?

    2. Re:Yes, Jesus Would Us GPS by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

      Read the grand parent.

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    3. Re:Yes, Jesus Would Us GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus did use GPS everyday... that is true, but his brother Satan ( or Lucifer as I like to call him ) knew much more about the system overall. In fact, he invented it. You know, necessity is the mutherfucker of invention...
      GPS was then adopted by the aliens or non-Earthlings after that.

      As a side-note, Jesus didn't really understand differential GPS, or he wouldn't have ended up on that cross, but a very nice throne.... but that is another story....

  62. Lots of stuff.... by Ion+Berkley · · Score: 1

    Firstly GPS is unlikely to be ever turned off at a global level for civilian users. There are so many unanticipated benefits of it that it is now an intimate part of our every day lives. GPS for instance provides the clock synchronization for most modern communications systems, it guides automated machinery on farms, it is (recently) approved for aircraft navigation by the FAA in the US. There are so many more examples. The US DoD now persues a strategy of selective denial where GPS will be denied only locally in a war theatre to non-authorized military/gov users.

    On another pro-euro point, the EU is gearing up to launch its own GALILEO system, which is very comprehensive and modern and will include special provisions for "life critical" applications where reliability is key.

    My somewhat limited sailing knowledge suggests that in Northen Europe other vesels pose a much greater navigation threat than the coastline these days, especially in the area of the english channel. Frankly boats without, radar, LORAN and GPS etc have no place to be out in conditions that require instrument navigation, these technologies are not so expensive, especially weighed against the cost of a boat.

    So saying all of that, keep the light houses, hell there historical value alone merits 400K euro's year.

    1. Re:Lots of stuff.... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Oh no the Government would never cut back on the budget.

  63. What about smaller boats? by Zolotkey · · Score: 1

    What about the smaller boats that dont get GPS for say fishing boats. I can see the oil rigs and other large ships not needing lighthouses. Its the small boats that still need the lighthouses.

    1. Re:What about smaller boats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What about the smaller boats"

      What? Fucker, you gotta be kidding me. Who gives a fuck about those turds? You must be smoking some serious dope.

      BTW: Waste points modding me down. That's what I posted AC, bitch.

  64. Old technology, but not obsolete. by Hlewagastir · · Score: 1

    Great idea, and while we're at it, why not kill all those pesky lights on airport runways. I mean, honestly, all the planes have GPS right? They can land just fine in the dark.
    I've been sailing most of my life. GPS does not replace aids to navigation, but rather supplements them. Any boater who is 100% reliant on electronic navigation is a hazard. GPS can be finicky. A hand bearing compass and a chart, along with the skill to make use of them, are extremely important to this day, but can only function when one has objects such as lighthouses to make fixes on. I hope Germany's actions are not a precursor to similar changes in the rest of the world.

  65. Lighthouses Aren't Used By Large Ships by SwedishChef · · Score: 1

    Large ships no longer use lighthouses for their navigation. For the most part the lighthouses mark points of land and ships tend to avoid points of land. Navigators on ships use a combination of radar and GPS (often combined into one collision avoidance device) to stay within traffic "lanes" that are often only shown on charts (no buoys or anything).

    While working on drill ships, tankers, fishing trawlers and other large vessels I can only remember using a lighthouse one time; to calibrate the compass on a drill ship for a USCG inspection (it had to be in the log).

    On sailboats, in kayaks, and other small vessels I've used lighthouses a lot. But I don't think small vessels count. Shipping companies pay more taxes and donate more money to politicians than kayakers and yachties do, so my guess is that as soon as they are done with a technology it'll be on the blocks despite any possible uses for the small-boat seaman.

    So lighthouses, along with sextants, will fall to the "I'll take two - one as a spare" GPS mentality (you would be amazed at the numbers of sailors who head for Tahiti with no knowledge of navigation other than reading their GPS). Not much use fighting it and, with any luck, they might even be right. Most lighthouses have been decommissioned anyway and the few that are active tend to be automated so it's not like any jobs are at stake.

    Just that they are nice to look at and, in the fog in a kayak, they're nice to listen to. But governments don't much care about kayaks.

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  66. Re:Oyg by alpha_foobar · · Score: 0, Redundant

    failure.

  67. In other news.. by StikyPad · · Score: 0, Redundant

    There have been concerns over the increasing trend to use cars instead of horses. Critics worry that these automatic mobiles might be far more dangerous than a traditional thoroughbred. Also of growing concern -- unreliable electric lamps seem to be replacing candles. Now we have one single point of failure for our nighttime safety. And what's worse: the telephone, the most vile of all creations, has degraded all sense of decency. A woman can hear a man's voice on the pillow next to her as she lays in bed. And let's not forget the zipper! Allowing men quick and unfettered access to sin!

    (10 points if you know where that last bit was paraphased from).

    1. Re:In other news.. by clean_stoner · · Score: 1

      Was it from George Carlin? It sounds familiar, but I can't place it for sure.

      --

      Sigs are for the weak.

  68. Made a great ad though :) by bad_fx · · Score: 1

    http://www.silva.se/kampanj/film/captain_win.wmv

    But yeah, from what I've heard it's just an urban legend.

  69. Great Lakes Lighthouses by kacymartin · · Score: 1

    I went on a Lighthouse tour last summer in the Straights of Mackinac (Lake Huron / Lake Michigan) And many of the Lighthouses there are being either purchased or maintained by The Great Lakes Lighthouse Keepers Association. If it werent for them many of them would be torn down or dismantled. None of them house any people any longer, however they are used for fog horns, and they do have transponders which tell the freighters how far away from them they are etc. One (Round Island Light) is even used as an airplane transponder to guide aircraft. I can see them being replaced by GPS guidance, but i would hate to see them go...

    --
    -Kacy
  70. hotels by the_non_geek · · Score: 1

    Psh, now I guess they can't "Leave a light house on for you."

  71. In other news... by tattoi.nobori · · Score: 1

    Makers of buggy-whips outraged at newfangled "horseless carriages."

  72. What if no GPS? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    GPS is great until you don't have it or unless you never did. How are small boaters going to navigate without beacons?

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  73. Redundancy by rnturn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I once worked with a bunch of pilots when GPS was still in its infancy. I never heard any of them, nor have I heard of any to this day, ever say they were interested in, say, getting rid of their VOR receiver once they ever put a GPS receiver in their plane. Why make mariners navigate without a backup system? I can't imagine that they're in favor of this. Can't imagine the companies that offer insurance are crazy about eliminating the lighthouse system either.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    1. Re:Redundancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, originally runways just had paint to show you were they were. Then they added magnetic compasses. Then they added lights, which helped a lot. Kept the compass, of course.

      Later, thanks to radio, NDBs were added. They still kept the compass, runway lights and paint, though.

      Later, they added VORs. The the compass, NDBs, lights and paint stayed.

      Later, they added GSL indicators. Still kept the compass, VORs, NDB, lights and paint.

      Then, they added DME so you could tell how far away you were. Of course, the compass, GSL, VOR, NDB, light and paint stayed.

      Then, RNAV was invented. Cool stuff. compass, DME, GSL, VOR, NDB, light and paint stayed.

      Now, most aircraft have GPS. But they also still use compass, RNAV, DME, GSL, VOR, NDB, light and paint.

      The odds of all that gear failing at once, plus the pilot going blind, is pretty low, and that's the way pilots like it. I know I do! My boat has both LORAN and GPS, but ultimately I count mostly on my magnetic-bearing binoculars.

  74. GPS is too ambitious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it should try to defeat the windmills first before going for bigger things.

  75. Re:Question FTA [OT] by StikyPad · · Score: 0

    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

    Plato fell into the old trap of equating right and wrong with legal and illegal.

  76. priorities by jpellino · · Score: 1

    as a boater, you should
    first learn to use a chart and compass, and recognize the lighthouse signals.
    then get a marine radio.
    then get a gps.

    the first is a must
    the second is a good backup
    the third is for verification

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  77. How? by sessamoid · · Score: 1
    How GPS Is Killing Lighthouses

    Lemme guess. GPS makes it much easier to hit lighthouses with precision -guided missiles?

    --
    "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
  78. How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how the hell do lighthouses make money anyways?

  79. Electricity is a funny thing... by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

    "critics question whether the new system is reliable and safe enough to warrant the closure of these historical beacons of safety."...

    Only as long as your electrical system/batteries hold out. Once the GPS/LORAN system becomes a boat anchor, you better damn well hope the lighthouse is still in operation.

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  80. As a boater I can tell you-A Watery Ham. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Saying GPS obsoletes lighthouses is like saying GPS-based navigation systems for cars obsolete stop signs, curve signs, and the blinking lights associated with them."

    Lighthouses is to boaters, what Hams are to landlubbers.

  81. This is different by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    LORAN, radar, etc. are all pretty expensive and more dificult to use. GPS is very cheap, and easy. Even for small lakes, such as the one that I grew up on (wonder lake, IL), We did not need these. Or so we thought. My parents and some neighbors were coming back from a party in a heavy fog and ran the boat on an island (not inhibreated). A GPS would have prevented that. After having taken a trip in my fathers current boat, down along the florida coast line, I think that we used GPS for about 99 % of all nav. and found it so much easier.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  82. Don't worry. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Light houses make idea wireless stations.

  83. What would Brian Boitano do? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 0

    What would Brian Boitano do
    If he was here right now,
    He'd make a plan
    And he'd follow through,
    That's what Brian Boitano'd do.

    When Brian Boitano was out at sea,
    Caught in a war without GPS,
    He used his blackmarket GPS mil specs,
    And saved his cargo fair and square.

  84. Not just funny but true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is very common in St. Pierre and Miquelon.

  85. like old business models-Hammer, nail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Everyone here seems to get it wrong."

    Of course. We're all too busy looking for the "RIAA model" in the wild, to bother actually being informed about the subject matter, and seeing if it actually applies. Please leave us in our crusade of hate.

    1. Re:like old business models-Hammer, nail. by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      Actually, all of what he said is correct. I've been on two lighthouses. My dad is a lighthouse keepers, so is an uncle, and two others have been the past. What is said is very much true, and very much correct.

      --
      Be relentless!
  86. What about lighthouse paintings? by mrgeometry · · Score: 1

    While I recognize that there are real issues here, I must say that my first reaction was: I wonder if GPS might be able to kill off paintings of lighthouses...

  87. Already being done by jangobongo · · Score: 1

    Already being done.

    Another poster mentioned that "Unfortunately, pretty much half of a cell tower's radius would be in mostly-unoccupied ocean." Considering the pervasiveness of cell phones, boaters could use their phones for 911 calls in emergencies on the water. The use of cell phones for marine communication is becoming more the norm. The ability to reach a local tower would aid those dialing 911, enabling them to go directly to emergency services, thereby avoiding delays during emergency situations.

    --

    Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
    1. Re:Already being done by Bob+McCown · · Score: 2, Informative

      The use of cellphones for marine comms is certainly NOT becoming the norm. Calling 911 on your cellphone if your boat is in trouble is the worst thing you can do. A marine radio on the energency channel is more likely to get several nearby boats, AND the Coast Guard, all in one shot. Also allows them to triangulate your position using off-the-shelf RF direction finders. Ask any coastie or freighter/tanker captain/crew, they prefer marine radio.

    2. Re:Already being done by happyDave · · Score: 1

      What's already being done is NOT "the use of cellphones for marine comms," but the use of lighthouses as cell-towers.

  88. Yep!-The NOT Factor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Which is why the Navy still teachs you how to navigate using an astrolabe or the constellations.

    What's that? They don't?"

    "Piloting and Navigation
    A course that provides students with the knowledge and skills required to navigate a vessel in coastal waters, day or night, and under conditions of reduced visibility. It includes coastal piloting and navigation techniques, and leads to plotting courses, running fixes, up to and including set and drift on charts and supported by nautical publications, tides, and current data. Students in this course use predominately paper charts and manual plotting instruments to learn piloting and navigation techniques, but later are also taught to use electronic navigation tools such as GPS and chart plotters."

    http://www.ansa.org/PDF_files/ANSA%20Training%20 Pl an%2003212004.pdf

    1. Re:Yep!-The NOT Factor. by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      Sorry my bad, sextant. I'm not a navy guy and never needed to learn how to navigate past the interstate highway system.

      They announced several years ago that they were going to discontinue teaching the new officers how to navigate using the old celestial tools, since GPS was now reliable and common enough that they could, well, rely on it. It's not like you're going to be able to make the aircraft carrier go if all its electronics get toasted, anyway, and if the nav system fails for some reason there's always hand units. I'd be surprised if you could manage to get as accurate coordinates from a sextant as you could with a GPS, and I bet the GPS costs a lot less too.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:Yep!-The NOT Factor. by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Which is fine until some unfriendly blows your boat out of the water and you're stuck in a little life boat trying to navigate 800 Miles to the nearest friendly coast. Although I suppose the lifeboats may be equipped with GPS as well.

  89. Re:pseudolites by kelk1 · · Score: 1

    At two or three embarked atomic clocks the US or the EU can send them into space, but they are probably still a bit expensive for local communities to be installed on a roof (NTP comes a bit short here).

    Local radio-localization is probably much cheaper and has the advantage of being redundant in case anything goes wrong. Just like traditional ILS for planes.

  90. Are you sure? by slapout · · Score: 1

    So maybe we should turn off all the runway lights? Cause airplanes have GPS too.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  91. Pop question! by copponex · · Score: 1

    When have the last major deployments of US forces occurred?

    2001 - GWB
    1991 - GHWB
    1975 - Lotsa folks
    WWII, WWI...

    When's the last time the US invaded a country with no probable cause?

    2001 - GWB

    And that's it. Iraq made zero, ZERO, NULL, nada, zip, rien... I could go on... military threats against the United States.

    Hmmmmm...

    Good point though. You're a genius! Just like your idol.

    1. Re:Pop question! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      to continue with this OT stuff...

      When have the last major deployments of US forces occurred?

      2001 - GWB
      1991 - GHWB
      1975 - Lotsa folks
      WWII, WWI..

      Bosnia
      Panama
      Somalia
      Kosovo
      I'm not defending GWB on escalating the endgame of the war started by Hussein in 1990, but this is most definately (and unfortunately) not the first. Nor will it be the last.

      1975 - Lotsa folks ?? Where? Perhaps you're thinking of a decade earlier. Which was a continuation of the foolishness started by the French, a decade before that.

  92. How Cars are killing Horse and Carriage by ThomasFlip · · Score: 1

    oh wait that already happened.

    --
    If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
    1. Re:How Cars are killing Horse and Carriage by ItsGottaBeGoatse · · Score: 0

      And what do all of these things have in common? Oh yes, nobody cares!

  93. Corrections: by copponex · · Score: 1

    I forgot the forgotten war, Korea, and he invaded in 2003, not 2001.

  94. Re:Question FTA [OT] by mlk · · Score: 1

    It was a young trap in Plato day.

    --
    Wow, I should not post when knackered.
  95. That is what being a captain means by jet_silver · · Score: 1

    If you are a captain, it is up to you (not "they") to do what's needed to make sure you are safe. That means you have a mechanical chronometer, a sextant and an HO229 with you when you take command. And you know how to use them, plus your common sense and coastwise skills, to navigate safely. Celestial navigation is not subject to governmental fiat and it is the ultimate fallback, if you know how to use it.

    Celestial navigation is not that hard to learn. You don't have to be terribly talented to get a fix that encompasses a couple square miles of ocean. If you are out in the middle of the north Pacific that is generally good enough.

    If you find an un-lit shore you stay the hell away until you can see what you are doing.

    Navigation to this standard has been done for hundreds of years, there is nothing stopping anyone from being a competent navigator except perhaps blindness or terminal stupidity.

    1. Re:That is what being a captain means by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      That doesn't do much good in stormy weather and/or fog. And as many ship wreckages have proven throughout history, you don't avoid accidents by simply "sitting still and doing nothing". Ships run aground due to tides, after all.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  96. Please momma, can't I feed the troll? Puleeze??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ah yes, the old "personal responsibility" excuse... Tell you what: I'll be personally responsible for my course corrections; if you'll be personally responsible for the weather, wind, current shifts and any of a dozen other unforeseen events that delay my sailboat an hour past expected arrival with sunlight? What, you can't be personally responsible for such events of nature that are beyond perfectly accurate prediction according to chaos theory?

    Think of actual circumstances before you foist this "enlightened" crap on people, whom I'll wager, have spent more time boating than you have.

    here endeth my rant.

  97. Lighthouses will stand the test of time ;) by Kaldaien · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I gave a lot of thought to this while I was in Cape Cod last Fall...

    They paid a few million dollars to relocate highland lighthouse hundreds of feet because of beach erosion in 1997. Admittedly anyone who sails around highland (Cape Cod) lighthouse is well aware of that spot and GPS does a far better job than that lighthouse... But the historical significance outweighed the price.

    GPS is more accurate and any vessel that uses it for navigation darn well better have a fail-safe. I don't think reliability is going to be too big a concern...

    Light houses will likely stay in operation purely for the atmosphere in the future. The new bulbs are extremely high efficiency and cost of operation is minimal, it's relocating the darn things because of beach erosion that might do them in... At that point it probably becomes a publicly funded situation, with local residents pitching to save their historic landmarks rather than tax dollars.

    I for one would pay to keep them in operation, you really have to experience a night in Cape Cod to understand :)

  98. The truth? by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

    It's not GPS that is the story. It's The German government saving money by closing down lighthouses. The first ecological damage caused by a ship running aground will show how short sighted this is. I am surprised the Greens are allowing this. Perhaps this is one way of dealing with the 5 million unemployed in Germany?

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  99. Oh good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps now the Euro's will give up on that whole "George W. Bush" thing and have a logical reason to bitch.

  100. is it just me... by jamesh · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... or did anyone else imagine laser beams from GPS satellite's aiming down at lighthouses blowing them to pieces?

    ?

    I guess it was just me.

  101. Ignored the point... by copponex · · Score: 1

    Korea - Goddamn communists!
    Vietnam - Communists again!!
    Panama - Oust Noriega (restore order around our canal)
    Bosnia, Kosovo - Stop Genocide
    Somolia - Stop famine, warlord battles
    Iraq 1991 - Stop Invasion of Kuwait (we need their oil)

    Instead of preventing genocide in Darfur, we're in Iraq for no reason. Instead of getting rid of our deficit, we're in Iraq for no reason. Instead of installing true order and security in Afghanistan, we're in Iraq for no reason. Instead of fighting fucking terrorists, were in Iraq for no reason.

    When the next terrorist attack does occur, and it will, I'll be glad to point to the tenure of GW and say, "If we hadn't been waving our dicks in the air in the Iraqi desert, sputtering bombs over more Muslims and creating more terrorists, we could have done something like install a secure democracy in Afghanistan instead of falling over each other for something as stupid as oil."

    Ending terrorism is easy.
    1. End the military sponsorship of Isreal.
    2. Get our troops fuck out of the Middle East.
    3. Peace!

    No money in it though. Thus, no republican support.

    1. Re:Ignored the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peace? I thought you said people were dying in Darfur. Or is it only American peace you care about?

  102. Re:Please momma, can't I feed the troll? Puleeze?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can ask him to be responsible for anything you want, and not unlike most government or state institutions, he can promise you the moon and swear up and down that you'll be safe...but at the end of the day, it's your ass in the damn boat after dark, not his. So again, back to personal responsibility. Sucks huh?

  103. When you choose the lesser of two evils.... by copponex · · Score: 1

    ...you have lost your character.

    You choose right every time. Under no circumstance do you support the mass murder of any human being. Under no circumstance is torture "okay." Under no circumstance is "minimizing casualty" moral when you're still killing people.

    America has simply become a self-interested empire, not a beacon of freedom. It's a sad truth, epitomized by government actions after September 11th, when they said... don't stop buying things!

    I'd rather be stupid and retain conscience and morality - and I'm not referring to the kind you think you're buying in church on Sunday.

    1. Re:When you choose the lesser of two evils.... by Xenna · · Score: 1

      I do know my parents were happy to be liberated by the Britains, Americans & Canadians even though that meant choosing the lesser of two evils many times, like:

      - Mass murdering German city populations to bring the Nazi's to their knees.

      - Minimizing casualties (and failing) when the British bombed a Rotterdam harbor and missed it by a few hundred meters, mostly destroying my mother's street.

      Still my parents were glad people had the courage and the sense to choose between two evils at that time.

      Fortunately people with a different character than you. What would you have done? Write mr. Hitler an angry letter?

    2. Re:When you choose the lesser of two evils.... by smaug195 · · Score: 1

      First of all I disagree with your entire premise. That any war, anything that may involve killing people is wrong.

      Fundamentally though, if you decide to stand back, and not do anything. You are choosing the greater evil. We shouldn't help Sudan, because we might kill people? So what if bombs kill some innocent people. Those same bombs can rescue millions. Is that evil... no. It's tragic.

    3. Re:When you choose the lesser of two evils.... by Kordmp · · Score: 1

      Reading the arguments it looks more like people are arguing between right and wrong and good and bad. I look at morality as good or bad. Right and wrong all depends on the person looking at the problem and or history. good and bad usually depends on a religious/moral belief. Things can be right and morally bad or right and morally good or wrong and either of the previous. Killing is not always wrong but it is always morally bad in my opinion. So to me that doesn't mean that you never kill it means that it is always a bad thing and should never be taken lightly. Unfortunately, I believe at times people forget this. If a situation arises where you have right to kill it does not justify always doing so.

  104. And? by tomstdenis · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Suppose GPS is killing lighthouses.... so?

    Let's see, safety of the many thousands of people at see ... or the livelyhood of a few hundred who aren't doing anything productive...

    Wow this is a toughy....

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  105. German Coast?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany has a "coast"! Couple of hundred foot of baltic barely counts as a coast!

  106. Re:Please momma, can't I feed the troll? Puleeze?? by kisielk · · Score: 1

    Well, despite the fact you don't have the guts to post under your own user name, I will join in the fray here.

    Going back to the hiker analogy, hikers are also fased with the same kind of delays yet you don't see precautions like that being taken for people hiking in the woods.

    It's very easy to underestimate the hike time, get caught in some bad weather, roll your ankle, get stuck somewhere, and all kinds of unforseen circumstances that can occur while on hike. Hell, it can get dark and you walk off the edge of a cliff. You don't see any kind of light houses being put up for individuals performing that kind of activity. I don't think there's enough to justify the cost of keeping all these lighthouses operating just so a bunch of people can float around in their pleasurecraft after dark.

    One can also argue there are far more hikers than there are boaters (due to the lower cost on entry no doubt). No doubt a lot more accidents too, I only hear of boating accidents here once in while, yet every week there's several stories in the papers of searches for lost hikers.

  107. I have to agree with neither. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see the point of both posters: an individual can do only so much to mitigate the random acts of misfortune (parent). The government can only do so much to mitigate the same random acts of misfortune (grandparent). Neither should be one-hundred percent responsible, nor can they be. Ultimately, both are subject to nature's influence.

    Politically, I observe: those who opine for all personal responsibility are selfish - they want benefit for themselves and not for anyonelse or benefit for no-one if they personally do not benefit directly. They call this "if I can't have it; no-one should" theory "fair". Aesop's fabled fox pining for grapes he can't reach would probably agree with them.

    Those who opine for all others to be responsible are not selfless, but helpless. However, these are not the people about whom the respondent (parent) posted. He seems rather to be advocating that he take responsibility for what he can, but that no-one can control the uncontrollable and he challenges the poster to eliminate that which cannot be eliminated, not so much challenging the grandparent to eliminate the threat, but rather to open his mind to the truth: nature influences sailboating and nature is not predictable. No-one can be completely responsible in thias particular case.

    The sardonicism is evident to me at least.

    Every safety device improves survival for the sailor (there are threads further down) and while GPS and LORAN help there always needs to be a fallback. What do you do if your battery runs dead? If corrosion introduces an unexpected short, or if, for imagination sake, two GPS satellite nodes go kaput; is it not appropriate to have one more backup?

    Isn't a back-up a good system's administration practice?

  108. Lighthouses keeper by Kadmos · · Score: 1

    I'd love to have been a lighthouse keeper. Just imagine it, no having to deal with stupid plebs, not PHB's, no moronic customers who don't know the difference between "Ancient Eygpt" and "Ancient Greece" (seriously). You'd only have to talk to people once a month (or two, or three) when supplies are delivered.

    That would be perfect.

  109. any up for sale? by the-build-chicken · · Score: 1

    ...how cool would living in a lighthouse be??!? Rip out the lamp and put a desk up there...sit up there coding all day long and get to exercise on the way to work....mad+

  110. How Light Bulbs Are Killing Candles by pgilman · · Score: 1

    (cf. anthem, ayn rand)

    --
    if i'm a grammar nazi, you're an illiteracy nazi.
  111. Re:As a REAL boater I can tell you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A canoe does not count.

    You are irresponsible if you put yourself into a position where you could benefit from having a lighthouse nearby and do not have GPS.

    A handheld GPS with complete Marine maps are available for $200 + $100 for the maps. They are not officially allowed as the primary means of navigation but endure a stomy night coming into an unfamiliar port and I doubt you will pick up the paper map and compass over a GPS with cartography.

    A very nice radar installation can be had for under $1500. Is your boat worth that much? are you and your passenger's lives?

    Lighthouses are obsolete.... but cute.

    Capt'n Alex

  112. Everyone please stop talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .05% of the posters here have ever been on a boat at night. Please stop talking before I realize how useless slashdot is.
    Lighthouses were designed for commercial shipping and boats with deep draft. These boat have no use for lighthouses. They have GPS, Loran, Radar and god knows what else.

    Lighthouses are obsolete.

    P.S. - I sailed my 40' sloop from St. Petes, FL to Duluth, MN over the summer. (via Bermuda and the erie canal). We used nothing but handheld GPS w. cartograpghy (2 Magellan Meridians w/ BlueNav charts)

  113. Galileo by mattr · · Score: 1

    The Europeans have Galileo, their own GPS, but that can also get turned off presumably for similar reasons as the U.S. one might. One might imagine a lighthouse transmitting at another wavelength in addition to visible light so that airborne objects could automatically find out where they are. But wait isn't that what aircraft normally use to navigate by? So maybe radio beacons and lighthouses could merge, but lighthouses would also provide socially and environmentally useful tasks (safety and observations as others have posted). If the lighthouse was tall enough a ship at sea could see it (in some wavelength) and so you might want to consider kites or weather balloons as providing lighthouse-like tasks, at least in an emergency. Don't go too high though or you'll end up a (presumably GPS) satellite..

    Well they may be going out of business for a good reason but it seems silly to let the small number of lighthouses disappear when they could play such an important role in navigation especially in the event of damage to the GPS network, intentional or not.

  114. In the grand spirit of posting AC tonight: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The lighting-the-park analogy isn't apropos for this simple reason: a lighthouse isn't so much to light the way as to be a waypoint and a warning. Lighthouses aren't like lighting the park with streetlamps to prevent missteps; they're like putting up traffic signals. Would you advocate removing all street signs and stop lights from public roads, simply because all commercial trucks have GPS and all Cadillacs have On-Star?

    Certainly not, I would hope, but that is indeed what the grandparent is asserting. The commercial vehicles are adequately protected (the article says they aren't) and therefore we should flip the switch on the lighthouses. Who cares about a plebian pleasure craft or the human life aboard - not him.

    Would I advocate a better watch systems for lost hikers? I certainly would. Every back-up makes the individual safer. I back-up my data and each and every human life is infinitely more important than data.

    Isn't it funny, we're feeding a troll, who begged to feed a troll? I guess that's the purpose, no? I post AC, not for any lack of "guts", but because I don't wish to join the community. The right to remain anonymous is something I respect in everyone, especially in myself.

  115. Re:Please momma, can't I feed the troll? Puleeze?? by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

    Going back to the hiker analogy, hikers are also fased with the same kind of delays yet you don't see precautions like that being taken for people hiking in the woods.

    Yes, you do. They have trails, warning signs, and even maps on posts in national parks. If someone goes missing and you report them, the park service will go out and look for them (and won't even charge for it! Imagine that!)

    In the states, ingredient labels are required on many foodstuffs so that people don't eat things that they don't want to or are allergic to.

    They also have lifeguards in pools just in case someone gets hurt, and railing around the ledges of popular tourist places in case people fall over. What's more, if you have a pool you're required to put a fence around it, or you're legally liable for someone who goes and swims in it and hurts themself. It's covered under 'attractive nusiance laws.'

    Even going back as far as talmudic law, if you have a roof (which in Babylon, were typically solid enough for people to walk on) you were required to put a railing around it.

    You may not like all this, but it is how things are done, and how they've been done for quite some time. People are thought, by law, to have a basic responsibility to warn others of danger and prevent accidents related to that danger.

    You may disagree with this, but your assertion that lighthouses are some kind of legal anomoly which should be un-funded lacks support.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  116. Candles by like.narly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know about you guys, but I keep candels in my drawer for when my light bulbs go out.
    Light houses might just be a good thing to keep around.

  117. Re:Sea-Horses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Black ink dark night.
    Oh. I'm frightened. Water sounds.
    Sea-Monsters.
    The Weather Channel. An idiot.
    " It's raining. Don't go outside."
    Think. Paper and pencil. Calculations.
    Find your compass. Without instrumentation.
    Live. Don't be afraid. Walk toward the light.

  118. Obligatory Simpsons quote by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1
    (Homer's silhouette appears in the sky, lit by the Springfield lighthouse)

    Bart: Hey look - is that Dad?
    Lisa: Either that, or Batman's really let himself go.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  119. Those lighthouses are real prats! by KZigurs · · Score: 1

    Really recorded conversation on the frequency of marine emergency
    on channel 106 to wide of the coast of Finisterra (Galicia),
    between galiziani and Americans, 16 October 1997.

    Spanish: (bottom noise)... speaks the A-853 to you, please, tackings 15
    degrees south in order to avoid to enter in collision with we. Been you
    directing exactly against of we, distance 25 miles nautical.

    Americans: (bottom noise)... we suggest you to turn 15 degrees north
    in order to avoid the collision

    Spanish: Negative. We repeat, tackings 15 degrees south in order to avoid
    collision

    Americans: (an other voice) speaks to the Captain about one ship to You of the States
    United of America. You intimiamo to turn 15 degrees north in order to avoid
    collision.

    Spanish: We do not consider it possible, of convenient, suggest to you
    to turn of 15 degrees in order to avoid to meet to you with we.

    Americans: (animated tone) SPEAKS CAPTAIN to YOU RICHARD JAMES HOWARD,
    TO THE COMMANDO OF AIRCRAFT CARRIERS USS LINCOLN, NAVY OF THE UNITED STATES
    Of AMERICA, The SECOND SHIP FROM GREAT WAR PIU' Of the FLEET AMERICAN.

    2 BATTLESHIPS, 6 ANNIHILATORS, 5 CRUISERS, 4 NUMEROUS SUBMARINES ESCORT US And OTHER SHIPS Of SUPPORT.

    "I DO NOT SUGGEST TO YOU I ORDER" TO CHANGE "YOU" TO YOUR ROUTE OF 15 DEGREES NORTH. IN CONTRARY CASE WE WILL LOOK AT OURSELVES FORCED TO TAKE

    THE MEASURES NECESSARY IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE THE EMERGENCY OF THIS SHIP.

    PLEASE INMEDIATAMENTE OBEYED And ARE REMOVED From OUR ROUTE!!!

    Spanish: Juan Manuel Salas Alcantara speaks to you. We are 2 persons. Us
    they escort our dog, the food, 2 beers, and a canary that now is
    sleeping. We have the support of the radio station "Cadena Dial de
    Coruña "and channel 106 of marine emergency.

    We do not head from no part, inasmuch as we speak from the firm earth,
    we are in the beacon A-853 di Finisterra on the Galiziana coast.

    We do not have the more pale idea than that place we have in it classifies
    of the Spanish beacons.

    You can take the measures that considered opportune and to make those haul
    that it seems to you in order to guarantee the emergency of your ship of merda that
    sfracellerà on the cliff.

    Therefore we insist of new and we suggest you to make the thing sensata
    and to change to your route of 15 degrees south in order to avoid the collision.

    Americans: Well, received, thanks
    ---
    (couldn't find translated version, here's the original - http://www.tizioandcaio.com/public/forum/viewtopic .php?t=24948)

  120. Article is dumb. by Eivind · · Score: 1
    The article is dumb.

    Without a doubt there are situations (allthough probably more and more seldom) where ligthhouses are beneficial. But the disadvantages of other navigation mentioned in the article pretty much all hit ligthhouses just as much, or even more. For example:

    • For one thing, GPS can never be 100 percent reliable -- extreme weather conditions like hail or snowfall or even solar winds are known to disrupt service. Ligthhouses, on the other hand are, as we all know, not at all affected by any of these conditions...
    • Bauermeister fears hobby captains are losing more and more of their skills as a result of modern technologies. If their GPS systems were to malfunction, they could face serious danger. Yeah, and like we all know -- if there's a ligthhouse in the area, no hobby-captain will rely on GPS and they'll all keep their map-reading skills finely honed.
    • But GPS, a service of the United States military with satellites that circumnavigate the globe, remains the only system available that covers the entire open sea. Yeah -- and ligthhouses cover "the entire open sea" exactly how ?
  121. Critics by Spazmania · · Score: 1

    critics question whether the new system is reliable and safe enough to warrant the closure of these historical beacons of safety

    Critics still believe the world is flat. I have no truck with critics.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  122. Doh stupid batteries by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    ..wheres that lightho- *crash*

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  123. ensure that the world is a stable place? by potus98 · · Score: 1

    ...they ought to ensure that the world is a stable place...

    Whoa Ho Ho Ho!!!! HA HAHAAAA! Yea, sure! Hold your breath while that happens. Hey, I've got another good one; my government (and the media) says there might be peace in the Middle East! Whoa Ho Ho Ho!!!! HA HAHAAAA!

    More people (in general, not necissarily the parent) should watch a little less news and read a little more history. It's like having a sports almanac from 1985 when you live in the 50's. Oh well, hope really does spring eternal.

    --
    This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
  124. redundancy by Phil246 · · Score: 1

    lighthouses are a good redundancy incase GPS/Radar fails on the boat, as far as i know they dont get paid for by passing ships either so why are they being 'forced to close' ?

  125. What about Puff? by Sierpinski · · Score: 1

    If it wasn't for Lighthouses, then Puff
    the Magic Dragon wouldn't have found
    a place to live where a young kid next door
    to him could feed and love him.

    Save these structures that are known
    to promote safety to animated magical beasts
    everywhere!

  126. did you hear about the guy by nounderscores · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...who sent a love letter to this girl three times a day for three years?

    She married the postman: He was always there.

  127. Jammed by mbbac · · Score: 1

    They might want to keep those lighthouses around. If they don't, it'll be mighty hard to navigate the shoreline after the American government decides to jam their GPS system.

    --

    mbbac

  128. You want them in certain areas, though. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    Especially coastline areas that tend to have an inordinate amount of shipwrecks historically.

    For example, the Cape Haterras lighthouse in North Carolina definitely should stay, not only as a historical landmark but also as a warning for ships to be careful travelling near the lighthouse due to the many shipwrecks that have occurred off the coast of Cape Haterras.

  129. Old, New, it's all the same by rhkaloge · · Score: 1

    GPS - Batteries dies, loose signal in rainstorms
    Lighthouse - Light burns out, can't see light in hail storm

    The more things change...

    Why GPS wins is control - you have your GPS with you where ever you go, Lighthouse are where someone else decided one was needed.

  130. Day After Tomorrow by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 1

    [sarcasm]
    BUt don't forget the movie 'The Day After Tomorrow'- should the early happen to stop revolving on its axis those lighthouse beacons will come in _real_ handy
    [/sarcasm]

    Realistically- that theory was proven impossible a LONG time before that movie... Made watching it that much less interesting.

    -M

    --

    when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
  131. Anyone who's played Civilation... by Foundryman · · Score: 1

    ...Knows that the Great Lighthouse is rendered obsolete by Magnetism.

  132. Do insurgents get the same GPS data as citizens? by grikdog · · Score: 1

    I remember seeing an NSA honeypot a couple of years ago that suggested GPS signals are deliberately skewed in combat situations. It would be interesting to know if Al Jazeera's GPS receivers work like Fox News'. Given the history of U.S.-German relations in the last 90 years (or 48 months), it seems oddly shortsighted to rely exclusively on U.S. aids to navigation along Fatherland beachfront.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  133. Lighed buoys? by TheSync · · Score: 1

    Last time I was night sailing (in pre-affordable-GPS-time), I mainly navigated using lighted buoys. They can have powerful strobes that are probably seen as far as any lighthouse beam.

  134. Read the grandparent post. by copponex · · Score: 1

    He said we choose Iraq over Iran as the lesser of two evils. I made the point that you should choose neither, which might involve invading both countries, or staying out of it entirely (like we did during the Rwandan genocides, the slaughter of East Timor, and currently genocides in Sudan).

    WWII was a necessity, and there are few who deny it. WWI was the result of age old alliances, and WWII was the result, as Woodrow Wilson foretold, of punishing Germany too harshly for their actions. Vietnam was unnecessary, as was Korea, and the second Gulf War (Iraq '03.)

    The point in every instance I can think of in the 20th and 21st centuries, except for WWII, war is unjustified. America has deployed troops around the world since 1950, claiming that instability can strike at any time. That's why we pay nearly the same taxes as some socialist countries, and reap far less benefits. It seems to me that we stick our nose in too much business, and when complain when someone punches it.

    Look at the current "war on terrorism" which we are "winning." Terrorism has existed since weapons have existed, and is really just a part of warfare. We don't think it's fair that they rig bodies with bombs, or plow their explosive filled vehicles into checkpoints. Well, what did the French Resistance do? What did the Belgians do? You fight with what you have, and I'm sure Iraqi Baathists would love to have tanks, humvees, satellite guides missiles, carriers launching ICBMs, and night vision.

    The real reason for our military stance is simple. We don't want to be bombed, so we bomb someone else - preferably a non-caucasian, poverty stricken country that doesn't really fight back. All of these imminent dangers fund our military research, and make sure we're the big kid on the block.

    War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength.

    "There's a lot of war talk these days, as there should be, but it's all aimed at making sure the world is peaceful." -GW Bush

    "There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of this site, and this guy is just a garbage man, that's all he is." -GW Bush

    "I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who probably read the news themselves." -GW Bush

    Have a good day!

    1. Re:Read the grandparent post. by Xenna · · Score: 1

      Well, you sure seemed to be making the point that choosing the lesser of two evils is *always* wrong. You state that much more clearly than the (now great-) grandfatherpost states that it was a good idea to support Iraq against Iran.

      Especially your Under no circumstance is "minimizing casualty" moral when you're still killing people. sentence sounds like you principally reject killing people.

      I'm glad to hear that you didn't intend it that way. As far as the Iran - Iraq thing, I believe that practically everybody (even our great grandfather) agrees that that was a dumb move in retrospect.

      The west should indeed make a point of being seen to support the side of justice and fair play, if it isn't too much against our own interest, that is. Let's be realistic first and idealistic if we can afford it.

  135. Funny, but a bad comparison. by momus_radar · · Score: 1
    GPS & lighthouses are aids to navigation and there can never be too many aids; especially when there are so many now and ships still run aground. They both can be used to compliment each other and if one fails the another can used.

    Email and the postal services do not have that type of interoperability.

    And yes, I am aware that most maritime accidents are related to human error and not to the navigation aids themselves.

  136. Door County Wisconsin, USA by eaddict · · Score: 1

    We were vacationing up there last year (we live in St Louis, MO, USA). We always do a light house tour. That year we were also informed all the houses were being closed to the public and sold. Most were being sold to private developers but some made it into the hands of Lighthouse fans/organizations. My girls, aged 7 and 9, loved the tales told by the folks who lived and operated them. We really enjoyed the tours. Luckily I have a few photos of us near and in them from the years we were up there. I guess I will keep them next to the ones of me by the World Trade Center.

    --
    "If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
  137. Another stupid Slashdot analogy by SirSnapperHead · · Score: 1

    that just doesn't work. GPS is providing a service similar to what lighthouses provide, and boat owners are paying for that service when they buy and use GPS products.

    Your analogy would only work if, say, the music and movie industries were suing people who bought independant movies and records. In that case customers are turning to alternative product offerings to satisfy similar needs. Note that in both cases they are still paying for a product.

    I know you're trying to be funny, but it only works if it makes sense. Thankfully for you Slashdot hardly *ever* makes sense.

    --
    It's the year of Linux! To celebrate I have x free hotmail accounts to give away
  138. redundancy = good by BK425 · · Score: 1

    Hmm, lots of folks making the buggy whip comparison here... only we're talking about life and death warnings not what kind of accelerator your transportation has.

    In life-critical systems, redundancy is good.

    Then there's the point of failure question, with GPS you have a single point of failure: the button that turns the system to "wobbly" (ie the interference they used to inject) can also turn the system to "off". If you were in the oval office and got word of a missile attack on DC... how long would GPS signal be up in that area? Buttons aside, the satellites have limited redundancy and lighthouses, in comparison to deploying hardware to space, just aren't all that expensive to run.

  139. Maybe a Lighthouse Subsidy is in order by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

    To preserve the way of life of Lighthouse hermits, we should provide current lighthouse keepers certificates for operating a lighthouse and receiving a subsidy - only there is no need for the lighthouse - so the lighthouse need not be operated - the certificate is then negotiable as an entitlement subsidy, and can be traded to bankers as a long term income instrument.

    I know this makes no sense - except that is exactly what we have done with water rights and sheep farming rights - so why not?

    Farmers have more votes than regular ol' people, (see electoral colledge) so why shouldn't they get whatever the hell subsidy they want?

    Enjoy

    AIK

  140. Re:Better kill some Germans by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    Given that the accuracy of non-militarized GPS is 10 meters at best- I'd think killing the lighthouses WILL kill some German Sailors who don't have the backup method of rekoning position. Heck, my GPS unit can't even tell which side of the street my house is on from position alone.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  141. Germany has a coast?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn that U.S. education system. You've failed me again!

  142. Morse code (Re:WTF = Where TF?!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Coast Guard has stopped regular use of Morse code something like ten years ago. I don't know if the military has stopped regular use of Morse over the radio or not, but I know there are people trained in Morse code in the service. I'm pretty sure that a large portion of people in the Coast Guard, Navy, and other people responsible for the communication, navigation and safety of ships at sea still know Morse code. I'm sure it comes in quite handy for signal lights. It's use over the radio is largely the domain of hobbyists though.

  143. Oh, it's priceless alright... by Behrooz · · Score: 1

    How e-mail is killing the sales of postage stamps.
    What? Is it priceless to send parcels full of viagra and other stuff avertiesed via email?


    Oh, it's priceless alright...
    ...recieving spam e-mail, free
    ...identity theft, $2574
    ...sending a parcel full of viagra via e-mail, priceless.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  144. Didn't Loran kill most lighthouses already? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I thought we used directional radio already to guide ships in on a beam. It's just that GPS is much less expensive and more accurate, but, the technology to replace light houses has already been around since the 1960s and in America most lighthouses I believe are museums.

    --
    This is my sig.
  145. Lighthouses Still Serve A Purpose by ks5d · · Score: 1

    Lighthouses, aside from being valid navigational beacons, are also more often than not historical structures. Cape Hatteras, St. Augustine, Boston Harbor, etc. -- all are of historical significance and have preservation societies to keep them in good condition for future visitors. Also, given that the U.S. Government has indicated that it might "turn off" freely-accessible GPS in future conflicts to prevent the system from being used against the U.S. Armed Forces, it might be wise to keep those lights turned on just in case you happen to be off some shoals the next time some middle eastern country gets invaded.