No: basic geometry dictates that, to find a position in three dimensions, you need three measurements of distance.
Yes! Why are you assuming there is no distance information? There is!
and the time by that satellite's clock - but since you have nothing to compare it against, you have no idea how long that signal took to reach you, so you get no information about your position.
This is where you're falling down. Of course you have things to compare it to. For each satellite, you have consecutive signals giving you new coordinates and a new time reference. You can calculate the distance between those two points. Then you can calculate the change in the difference between the timestamp in the signal and its arrival time. This actually gives you very good distance information, although of course it isn't static. (It could not be.)
You can also make comparisons between the satellites. That only gives you relative, rather than absolute, distances, but you can use that together with using your absolute distance measurements to refine your accuracy somewhat.
So yes, you do have distance information. At least 2 ways of measuring it: absolute to each satellite, and relative between them.
Obviously yes. But the signal you hear from each satellite is offset by an unknown amount (assuming unknown time/position)
No. It's not unknown. You're forgetting something. A couple of things, actually.
First, you know C, the speed of light. Second, you aren't just taking one measurement but many. When the satellite sends a signal it sends a position signal as well as time. By knowing 2 consecutive positions, C, and the differences (including time difference) between the 2 signals, you can calculate the distance pretty precisely... or at least as precisely as the quality of your data allows.
But wait... there's more! You actually have THREE known points, and THREE different sets of time signals. And knowing the positions of the 3 satellites, you can also refine your calculations by using the relative differences between different satellite signals.
So you actually do have 3 known points, and all the information you need to calculate the distances to them. Of course, once again there are small errors and some relativistic effects that make your calculation a bit fuzzier than ideal, which we have already discussed.
An HR department is supposed to act as ombudsman when there are conflicts between employee and company. That's part of the actual definition of the job.
I'm not naive enough to think they always work that way, but it is certainly part of the job description. While I did not expect a lot of help by HR against the company, at the same time I did not expect HR to lie break the law.
Are you absolutely certain that's how GPS works? Wouldn't that require that each GPS receiver have an atomic clock so it can calculate the difference in time between what the signal says and the time at your receiver?
Yes, I am absolutely certain. And no, it wouldn't, because the GPS signal ISN'T "only" a time signal. It has position information for the satellite! You have assumed far too much.
Given 3 points and their positions, you can calculate the RELATIVE distance from the satellites by noting the relative differences in the time signals. So all the information you need to make the basic calculation are there:
You have 3 points with coordinates. You can calculate the distance to each of those points from the known coordinates of the satellites and the relative time DIFFERENCES of the signals. No atomic clock needed. With the time differences, and knowing what C is, you can make a very precise calculation of your position.
I repeat: the only reason you need a 4th signal is to compensate for minor satellite positioning errors and relativistic effects.
Are you absolutely certain that's how triangulation works? Is it possible that you're actually trying to describe trilateration?
If you're going to split stupid semantic hairs, you can fuck off right now. The basic principles are the same, and I don't think anybody else here misunderstood what I was saying.
2. Even if there were no errors or relativistic effects, how could a GPS receiver without an atomic clock find your basic location and elevation using only 3 satellites? Sure, a GPS receiver with an atomic clock would know the sizes of those 3 spheres. But imagine, just for a moment, that GPS receivers don't have atomic clocks. Don't you see that (even with no errors/relativistic effects) you don't know the sizes of those 3 spheres?
I explained this above. Maybe if you'd asked a polite question or two earlier, instead of flying off on this rant based on incorrect assumptions , it could have been explained to you more easily.
A second signal reveals the size of a second sphere, which usually intersects the first sphere along a circle. This constrains the receiver's position to a 1D circle.
... and more to the same effect.
But that's NOT how it works. The GPS signal isn't ONLY a time signal, it also contains the position of the satellite.
The other two satellites ALSO contain position information.
It is therefore possible to still make the same 3D computation, using the RELATIVE time signals of the satellites.
I did oversimplify just a bit for the sake of a general audience. But the fact remains that geometrically, if you have 3 known points and the distance to each of them, you can calculate a 3D point in space.
And in turn you can calculate the distances from the 3 known points by the relative time of arrival of the time signals. I don't think anybody here said anything about having to measure the times directly.
But I want to repeat: we've hashed this all out here on Slashdot before, and several of us found detailed references. I do know how it works.
That only means we were talking about different things, it doesn't make you right.
But the time the signal gets to your GPS receiver, the position of the satellite will have offset by a small distance, and there are also relativistic effects to be compensated for. Those are the offsets I was referring to.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. It's a 4D problem because you don't know what time it is. Three spheres intersect at a point, but there are still multiple possibilities because you don't know how big the spheres are.
Yes, it does make sense, because yes, you do know the size of those spheres. That's exactly what GPS calculates!
What GPS satellites send is a TIME signal. The difference in time between what the signal says, and the time at your receiver, is the distance to the satellite, which in turn is the radius of the sphere.
The only reason spheres come into the picture at all is because of errors in the signal. If there were no errors or relativistic effects, it would be a simple problem in triangulation, finding the intersection of 3 lines of known length from 3 known points.
But the positioning and relativistic error add an error factor into the lengths of those lines, so the target region mathematically expands to a 3-D region within the non-point intersection of 3 spheres.
So the basic location -- the area within that region -- is still known, as previously discussed. And it is known to actually a pretty reasonable degree... within about 100 meters, more or less. The 4th signal -- the "ground station" signal -- can be used to largely compensate for the mentioned errors because it is not moving relative you on Earth's surface, so you get a constant time signal mostly immune to those errors.
But make no mistake: the 4th signal is only to improve already-pretty-good accuracy. It is not a 4th "position" signal, per se. It is there to compensate for the errors in the other 3 signals.
I didn't mean to be quite so repetitive, I was just trying to reinforce the point.
One minor correction:
The only reason GPS doesn't pinpoint based only on 3 points is because of slight positioning error and compensation for relativistic effects, which adds potential error and so expands the solution region from a point to a 3-D space.
The 4th signal is to reduce those errors, thereby reducing the volume of the solution space back toward a point.
Should have been:
The only reason GPS doesn't pinpoint based only on 3 points is because of slight satellite positioning error and relativistic effects, which adds potential error and so expands the solution region from a point to a 3-D space.
The 4th signal is to reduce the positioning error and compensate for relativity, thereby reducing the volume of the solution space back toward a point.
Actually basic geometry does not say that at all. The receiver does not get given an accurate distance to each satellite, instead it is an inacurrate relative difference in distance. The intersection between the three spheres is a 3d region rather than a point. The extra fix is required to constrain the equations to a single point. There is more info here.
This has all been discussed here on Slashdot before. Technically, you are correct but as a practical matter, you are not.
The intersection of the spheres is obviously a 3-D region. This is not in dispute. The factor in question (as you imply in a subtly incorrect way) is the SIZE of that 3-D region. And all this makes absolutely no difference to what I stated above. An exact solution would be a point in space (proving the comment I made about geometry).
The intersection of 3 spheres is most definitely SUFFICIENT, geometrically, to locate a point. (Which in turn requires 3 satellites.) The issue here is that the 3 satellites are moving and so there is a slight uncertainty, or offset, which expands the possible error. The unique Earth-surface solution PLUS error margins result in a 3-D region, rather than a single point.
And that, again as I stated earlier, is what the 4th signal, historically from a ground station, is for: to compensate for those errors, and reduce that region (as much as possible) to a single point.
So just to make this very clear, and avoid misunderstandings: yes, geometry DOES say you can triangulate a 3-D point on Earth from 3 known points in space. The 3 points have 2 solutions, but one is off in space and is discarded. The ONLY time those 3 points are not (theoretically) sufficient is when the plane formed by those 3 points is parallel to a line drawn from your position, which should never happen with same-altitude satellites visible from the ground.
The only reason GPS doesn't pinpoint based only on 3 points is because of slight positioning error and compensation for relativistic effects, which adds potential error and so expands the solution region from a point to a 3-D space.
The 4th signal is to reduce those errors, thereby reducing the volume of the solution space back toward a point.
Obviously yes. But the signal you hear from each satellite is offset by an unknown amount (assuming unknown time/position). So, you need to solve for 4 variables (time, x, y, z), so you require 4 satellites, as you said later on.
As I stated above, the 4th signal is what the ground station is for. Its purpose is to compensate for the slight offsets you mention. It doesn't have an unknown offset because it is a ground station.
Also as I mentioned, as the system has become more sophisticated they have found ways to send the offset signals via the satellites themselves, though they are still calculated via ground stations.
The fact remains that the basic triangulation can be performed with a maximum of 3 satellites. The 4th just improves accuracy. A particular GPS receiver may insist on 4 satellite locks, depending on its own hardware and software. But that doesn't make it strictly necessary for a rough location.
I once worked for a mid-size multinational (about 1200 employees). When I gained a supervisory position, and annual employee review time came around (itself a bad practice), I was informed in no uncertain terms that it was "unofficial" company policy to never give anyone a really favorable review, because that (A) kept salaries down, and (B) kept headhunters from other companies away.
My "this is a good company" score for them went down about 40% that day.
Are you competent? Awesome. Are you incompetent? GTFO.
Okay, BUT... this brings us back to OP.
Anti-poaching agreements and "blacklists" are equally anti-competitive practices, and have no place in a responsible tech company. (Hear that, Apple?) Blacklists can be abused just as much as the other, PLUS it can encourage discrimination.
Let's say your HR staff has a candidate who is a tech wiz, but just not a good fit for the company. Rather than just turning them down, a less-than-honest PR dept. could blacklist them, to keep them from getting hired by the competition.
The same could be done if the hiring person or people just plain didn't like a particular gender or minority.
I've been a victim in the past of abuse by HR in a large company. The head of HR felt that rather than doing an actual job of HR, it was her real job to protect the company against grievances.
Three satellites plus some basic assumptions about altitude will work fine, outside of some really unlucky alignments.
Exactly. Throw out the nonsense solution of the two that triangulation in 3D gives you with 3 sats, and you have basic location. The 4th signal, which until now has been served by ground stations, is to add accuracy that isn't normally available in the civilian signal. Newer GPS can make use of more satellite signals to improve accuracy, but they are not strictly necessary for decent resolution.
The good news is that civilian-aimed signals are being built into the new generations of satellites, though it will still be a few years until they are deployed.
No, it is NOT wrong. Your assertion is a common misconception. I assure you: I looked into this technology in depth.
Just as basic geometry would normally dictate, 3 satellites are sufficient to find your basic location and elevation. (There are actually 2 solutions to the equation, but one of them makes no sense because it's at some point out in space.)
The 4th element is what is known as a "ground segment", which is used to increase the accuracy of the 3-satellite triangulation. Any further satellite signals are used only to further increase accuracy.
The 4th element is gradually being moved into orbit, which WILL make it a 4-satellite lock for accuracy boost. But the fact remains that your basic geolocation including elevation is still fundamentally based on 3 satellites. The 4th signal is only to improve accuracy for civilians, as they do not have access to the military-accurate signals.
Disney must be the most popular babysitter in the world.
There is a point here, which I did not see at first. Still, while I'm sure Disney's overt motivations are stellar, their ultimate motivation is not to do you any favors.
Because it would be meaningless to "compensate" for the time difference between clocks moving and accelerating differently.
It isn't "meaningless", it's just not very useful.
The real problem is that with "clocks" this precise, there must be an acceleration standard in addition to the other standards.
I suggest that 3 be placed on the same fixed level surface, at some kind of "elevation" standard based on effective gravity, so that tectonic changes. Because this is an obvious source of potential error. Just for one example, a recent media article was all about "sea level rise" on the East U.S. coast, when in fact most if not all of what they actually observed (according to official figures) was not sea rise at all, but land subsidence.
Since rise and subsidence tends to occur very slowly, any adjustments in "effective gravity" should be doable via simple low-mass spacers under the equipment. But again, elevation should start at some "standard", such as mean sea level, so that comparisons can be made. Obviously MSL is an artificial figure but I am not aware of a better standard.
We had this discussion a while ago, and I looked it up.
3 satellites for a basic fix. The 4th element is a ground station that corrects for most error. Further satellites can add a bit to accuracy but only with diminishing returns.
Slashdot Mirror
No: basic geometry dictates that, to find a position in three dimensions, you need three measurements of distance.
Yes! Why are you assuming there is no distance information? There is!
and the time by that satellite's clock - but since you have nothing to compare it against, you have no idea how long that signal took to reach you, so you get no information about your position.
This is where you're falling down. Of course you have things to compare it to. For each satellite, you have consecutive signals giving you new coordinates and a new time reference. You can calculate the distance between those two points. Then you can calculate the change in the difference between the timestamp in the signal and its arrival time. This actually gives you very good distance information, although of course it isn't static. (It could not be.)
You can also make comparisons between the satellites. That only gives you relative, rather than absolute, distances, but you can use that together with using your absolute distance measurements to refine your accuracy somewhat.
So yes, you do have distance information. At least 2 ways of measuring it: absolute to each satellite, and relative between them.
Obviously yes. But the signal you hear from each satellite is offset by an unknown amount (assuming unknown time/position)
No. It's not unknown. You're forgetting something. A couple of things, actually.
First, you know C, the speed of light. Second, you aren't just taking one measurement but many. When the satellite sends a signal it sends a position signal as well as time. By knowing 2 consecutive positions, C, and the differences (including time difference) between the 2 signals, you can calculate the distance pretty precisely... or at least as precisely as the quality of your data allows.
But wait... there's more! You actually have THREE known points, and THREE different sets of time signals. And knowing the positions of the 3 satellites, you can also refine your calculations by using the relative differences between different satellite signals.
So you actually do have 3 known points, and all the information you need to calculate the distances to them. Of course, once again there are small errors and some relativistic effects that make your calculation a bit fuzzier than ideal, which we have already discussed.
An HR department is supposed to act as ombudsman when there are conflicts between employee and company. That's part of the actual definition of the job.
I'm not naive enough to think they always work that way, but it is certainly part of the job description. While I did not expect a lot of help by HR against the company, at the same time I did not expect HR to lie break the law.
Are you absolutely certain that's how GPS works? Wouldn't that require that each GPS receiver have an atomic clock so it can calculate the difference in time between what the signal says and the time at your receiver?
Yes, I am absolutely certain. And no, it wouldn't, because the GPS signal ISN'T "only" a time signal. It has position information for the satellite! You have assumed far too much.
Given 3 points and their positions, you can calculate the RELATIVE distance from the satellites by noting the relative differences in the time signals. So all the information you need to make the basic calculation are there:
You have 3 points with coordinates. You can calculate the distance to each of those points from the known coordinates of the satellites and the relative time DIFFERENCES of the signals. No atomic clock needed. With the time differences, and knowing what C is, you can make a very precise calculation of your position.
I repeat: the only reason you need a 4th signal is to compensate for minor satellite positioning errors and relativistic effects.
Are you absolutely certain that's how triangulation works? Is it possible that you're actually trying to describe trilateration?
If you're going to split stupid semantic hairs, you can fuck off right now. The basic principles are the same, and I don't think anybody else here misunderstood what I was saying.
2. Even if there were no errors or relativistic effects, how could a GPS receiver without an atomic clock find your basic location and elevation using only 3 satellites? Sure, a GPS receiver with an atomic clock would know the sizes of those 3 spheres. But imagine, just for a moment, that GPS receivers don't have atomic clocks. Don't you see that (even with no errors/relativistic effects) you don't know the sizes of those 3 spheres?
I explained this above. Maybe if you'd asked a polite question or two earlier, instead of flying off on this rant based on incorrect assumptions , it could have been explained to you more easily.
A second signal reveals the size of a second sphere, which usually intersects the first sphere along a circle. This constrains the receiver's position to a 1D circle.
... and more to the same effect.
But that's NOT how it works. The GPS signal isn't ONLY a time signal, it also contains the position of the satellite.
The other two satellites ALSO contain position information.
It is therefore possible to still make the same 3D computation, using the RELATIVE time signals of the satellites.
I did oversimplify just a bit for the sake of a general audience. But the fact remains that geometrically, if you have 3 known points and the distance to each of them, you can calculate a 3D point in space.
And in turn you can calculate the distances from the 3 known points by the relative time of arrival of the time signals. I don't think anybody here said anything about having to measure the times directly.
But I want to repeat: we've hashed this all out here on Slashdot before, and several of us found detailed references. I do know how it works.
That only means we were talking about different things, it doesn't make you right.
But the time the signal gets to your GPS receiver, the position of the satellite will have offset by a small distance, and there are also relativistic effects to be compensated for. Those are the offsets I was referring to.
s/PR dept./HR dept.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. It's a 4D problem because you don't know what time it is. Three spheres intersect at a point, but there are still multiple possibilities because you don't know how big the spheres are.
Yes, it does make sense, because yes, you do know the size of those spheres. That's exactly what GPS calculates!
What GPS satellites send is a TIME signal. The difference in time between what the signal says, and the time at your receiver, is the distance to the satellite, which in turn is the radius of the sphere.
The only reason spheres come into the picture at all is because of errors in the signal. If there were no errors or relativistic effects, it would be a simple problem in triangulation, finding the intersection of 3 lines of known length from 3 known points.
But the positioning and relativistic error add an error factor into the lengths of those lines, so the target region mathematically expands to a 3-D region within the non-point intersection of 3 spheres.
So the basic location -- the area within that region -- is still known, as previously discussed. And it is known to actually a pretty reasonable degree... within about 100 meters, more or less. The 4th signal -- the "ground station" signal -- can be used to largely compensate for the mentioned errors because it is not moving relative you on Earth's surface, so you get a constant time signal mostly immune to those errors.
But make no mistake: the 4th signal is only to improve already-pretty-good accuracy. It is not a 4th "position" signal, per se. It is there to compensate for the errors in the other 3 signals.
One minor correction:
The only reason GPS doesn't pinpoint based only on 3 points is because of slight positioning error and compensation for relativistic effects, which adds potential error and so expands the solution region from a point to a 3-D space.
The 4th signal is to reduce those errors, thereby reducing the volume of the solution space back toward a point.
Should have been:
The only reason GPS doesn't pinpoint based only on 3 points is because of slight satellite positioning error and relativistic effects, which adds potential error and so expands the solution region from a point to a 3-D space.
The 4th signal is to reduce the positioning error and compensate for relativity, thereby reducing the volume of the solution space back toward a point.
Actually basic geometry does not say that at all. The receiver does not get given an accurate distance to each satellite, instead it is an inacurrate relative difference in distance. The intersection between the three spheres is a 3d region rather than a point. The extra fix is required to constrain the equations to a single point. There is more info here.
This has all been discussed here on Slashdot before. Technically, you are correct but as a practical matter, you are not.
The intersection of the spheres is obviously a 3-D region. This is not in dispute. The factor in question (as you imply in a subtly incorrect way) is the SIZE of that 3-D region. And all this makes absolutely no difference to what I stated above. An exact solution would be a point in space (proving the comment I made about geometry).
The intersection of 3 spheres is most definitely SUFFICIENT, geometrically, to locate a point. (Which in turn requires 3 satellites.) The issue here is that the 3 satellites are moving and so there is a slight uncertainty, or offset, which expands the possible error. The unique Earth-surface solution PLUS error margins result in a 3-D region, rather than a single point.
And that, again as I stated earlier, is what the 4th signal, historically from a ground station, is for: to compensate for those errors, and reduce that region (as much as possible) to a single point.
So just to make this very clear, and avoid misunderstandings: yes, geometry DOES say you can triangulate a 3-D point on Earth from 3 known points in space. The 3 points have 2 solutions, but one is off in space and is discarded. The ONLY time those 3 points are not (theoretically) sufficient is when the plane formed by those 3 points is parallel to a line drawn from your position, which should never happen with same-altitude satellites visible from the ground.
The only reason GPS doesn't pinpoint based only on 3 points is because of slight positioning error and compensation for relativistic effects, which adds potential error and so expands the solution region from a point to a 3-D space.
The 4th signal is to reduce those errors, thereby reducing the volume of the solution space back toward a point.
Obviously yes. But the signal you hear from each satellite is offset by an unknown amount (assuming unknown time/position). So, you need to solve for 4 variables (time, x, y, z), so you require 4 satellites, as you said later on.
As I stated above, the 4th signal is what the ground station is for. Its purpose is to compensate for the slight offsets you mention. It doesn't have an unknown offset because it is a ground station.
Also as I mentioned, as the system has become more sophisticated they have found ways to send the offset signals via the satellites themselves, though they are still calculated via ground stations.
The fact remains that the basic triangulation can be performed with a maximum of 3 satellites. The 4th just improves accuracy. A particular GPS receiver may insist on 4 satellite locks, depending on its own hardware and software. But that doesn't make it strictly necessary for a rough location.
To add to my comment above:
I once worked for a mid-size multinational (about 1200 employees). When I gained a supervisory position, and annual employee review time came around (itself a bad practice), I was informed in no uncertain terms that it was "unofficial" company policy to never give anyone a really favorable review, because that (A) kept salaries down, and (B) kept headhunters from other companies away.
My "this is a good company" score for them went down about 40% that day.
Are you competent? Awesome. Are you incompetent? GTFO.
Okay, BUT... this brings us back to OP.
Anti-poaching agreements and "blacklists" are equally anti-competitive practices, and have no place in a responsible tech company. (Hear that, Apple?) Blacklists can be abused just as much as the other, PLUS it can encourage discrimination.
Let's say your HR staff has a candidate who is a tech wiz, but just not a good fit for the company. Rather than just turning them down, a less-than-honest PR dept. could blacklist them, to keep them from getting hired by the competition.
The same could be done if the hiring person or people just plain didn't like a particular gender or minority.
I've been a victim in the past of abuse by HR in a large company. The head of HR felt that rather than doing an actual job of HR, it was her real job to protect the company against grievances.
It's not about anonymity, you narrowminded fool. It's about a payment method and network that big banking cannot control.
Talk about narrow-minded. It's very much about BOTH. And more besides.
People need to wake up and realize that privacy is dead, and ubiquitous violations of personal privacy will soon become the norm.
Absolute hogwash.
The moment privacy actually became dead, so would freedom. You definitely, indisputably cannot have that both ways.
Three satellites plus some basic assumptions about altitude will work fine, outside of some really unlucky alignments.
Exactly. Throw out the nonsense solution of the two that triangulation in 3D gives you with 3 sats, and you have basic location. The 4th signal, which until now has been served by ground stations, is to add accuracy that isn't normally available in the civilian signal. Newer GPS can make use of more satellite signals to improve accuracy, but they are not strictly necessary for decent resolution.
The good news is that civilian-aimed signals are being built into the new generations of satellites, though it will still be a few years until they are deployed.
No, it is NOT wrong. Your assertion is a common misconception. I assure you: I looked into this technology in depth.
Just as basic geometry would normally dictate, 3 satellites are sufficient to find your basic location and elevation. (There are actually 2 solutions to the equation, but one of them makes no sense because it's at some point out in space.)
The 4th element is what is known as a "ground segment", which is used to increase the accuracy of the 3-satellite triangulation. Any further satellite signals are used only to further increase accuracy.
The 4th element is gradually being moved into orbit, which WILL make it a 4-satellite lock for accuracy boost. But the fact remains that your basic geolocation including elevation is still fundamentally based on 3 satellites. The 4th signal is only to improve accuracy for civilians, as they do not have access to the military-accurate signals.
Disney must be the most popular babysitter in the world.
There is a point here, which I did not see at first. Still, while I'm sure Disney's overt motivations are stellar, their ultimate motivation is not to do you any favors.
Should a second in China be minusculy shorter than one in America?
No. It should be slightly longer.
s/so that tectonic changes/so that tectonic changes are accounted for
Because it would be meaningless to "compensate" for the time difference between clocks moving and accelerating differently.
It isn't "meaningless", it's just not very useful.
The real problem is that with "clocks" this precise, there must be an acceleration standard in addition to the other standards.
I suggest that 3 be placed on the same fixed level surface, at some kind of "elevation" standard based on effective gravity, so that tectonic changes. Because this is an obvious source of potential error. Just for one example, a recent media article was all about "sea level rise" on the East U.S. coast, when in fact most if not all of what they actually observed (according to official figures) was not sea rise at all, but land subsidence.
Since rise and subsidence tends to occur very slowly, any adjustments in "effective gravity" should be doable via simple low-mass spacers under the equipment. But again, elevation should start at some "standard", such as mean sea level, so that comparisons can be made. Obviously MSL is an artificial figure but I am not aware of a better standard.
We had this discussion a while ago, and I looked it up.
3 satellites for a basic fix. The 4th element is a ground station that corrects for most error. Further satellites can add a bit to accuracy but only with diminishing returns.
"Whoever said a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush hasn't been putting his bird in the right bushes." -- Gallagher
No competence required, only charisma, and not much of that either. Just sign here... and here... aaand here... thankyouverymuch
Right, but I think that was GP's point. So I don't understand your question: "Where's the incompetence?" It's everywhere.
Isn't a search engine just applying a ranking algorithm to content? Didn't think algorithms could be patented.
Regardless of whether it's patentable... does anybody really need a search engine that only returns sites "certified" by Disney? Really?
I trust Disney to certify sites about as much as I would trust government to do it. Which is to say: about zero.