Definitely illegal in many jurisdictions. You must have the appropriate license to broadcast in any part of the spectrum. In some cases, licenses are transferable from the manufacturer of a device, to the user (Family Radio Service and WiFi for example), but the license must be bought/acquired somewhere in the chain. Given the potential for interference with military uses, I'd be very surprised to hear that anyone has managed to get a legitimate license to do that.
I suspect the data available there shares at least some common ancestry with the stuff used in the weapons systems you refer to. Fortunately for us, they recognize it also has value for academia and industry.
GPS satellites are not geostationary, they orbit at a height of about 20,000km and a velocity of about 7km/s, so from our perspective they always move. Some of the assisted GPS systems have geostationary satellites that broadcast corrections for GPS though, and the Chinese GNSS system (I forget the name) will have geostationary satellites too.
Haha, not exactly though, the Russians put up / are putting up GLONASS which is similar in many ways to GPS. It is still a passive system, active systems are too complicated (costly) to implement when your transmitter and receiver are 20,000km apart, and when you want to service many users.
Sorry to be another "The military wouldn't be interested" poster, but as many others have stated, they wouldn't likely be first in line. There are systems similar to this that drop beacons to the seabed with "known" positions (the boat drops one and records its position based on the usually GPS determined position of the boat). The problem is that its difficult to survey those beacons accurately. On the other hand, as long as the position of these buoys are stable enough that the GPS receiver is able to maintain lock, the buoy becomes a semi-mobile base station that can be used to position other things underwater.
Honestly the first ones in line for a system like this would probably be oil companies putting in offshore rigs, assuming that this system is able to provide similar accuracy to the systems already in use. Few other applications that I am aware of have the budget and need for that kind of precise positioning.
Forgive my ignorant musings, but I wonder if using the same type of technology used to accelerate the projectile could be used to levitate it above the rails (mag-lev ??) thereby eliminating wear (other than catastrophic failure). Any comments on this from someone more knowledgeable?
In Canada at least, the biggest reason is insulation. It is easy to insulate a wooden frame house effectively, while it is relatively hard to insulate a brick and mortar house. I have heard of aerated concrete having some ridiculously high insulation ratings, but I think this is a little cost prohibitive to the general population. The aerated concrete doesn't have the strength to be structural, so it needs some kind of frame (2x6 lumber, usually) to support it anyways.
I'm no expert, corrections are welcome.
I don't know about the 24" monitor comment, but directX 10 capability puts this high up on my wish list... mostly because of Crysis. http://www.crysis-game.com/ You'll probably have more luck with Google though, not much of a page. Take a look at the movies though, they can be found, just make sure you see it at high res.
See my posts above, but essentially... yes, it is possible to get a better position. The methods are different from what you have described however. If the same receiver can receive signals from all of the systems, there are more satellites available giving you the potential for better geometry. Another big factor is the addition of a third frequency, which carries another civilian-accessible code, this signal will allow the effect of the ionosphere to be removed from the range measurements, meaning that your position accuracy will increase.
Receivers that can use both GPS and GLONASS signals already exist, but they do not treat the two systems as separate, they use all the available information from both together to generate the best possible solution. The catch? Price. A receiver capable of GPS and GLONASS measurements will undoubtedly also be capable of carrier-phase measurements and receiving both L1 and L2. This type of receiver will have a geodetic type antenna (not the kind you can carry in your pocket), and probably cost on the order of $10,000-$30,000. These are widely used in land surveying, you are unlikely to find someone who owns one without using it to make a living.
The Europeans have the advantage of learning from the mistakes made by the Air Force, as well as newer technology. GALILEO is a win-win for users, because it is causing the acceleration of the GPS program, GPS-III should be operational years ahead of schedule (and many augmentations originally slated for block III are now in IIF - launch starts 2007). When combined GALILEO/GPS recievers are released to market, the accuracy commonly available to civilians will increase because of the added frequencies and potentially better geometry. Another potential benefit could be a dramatically reduced barrier to entry in the GPS/GNSS reciever manufacturing and design industry. The current players are working hard now to keep their dominance when the new systems are operational.
As for the Chinese, I don't think they will 'struggle' all that much, but I guess time will tell. The fact that they will have a free to use segment just means that the system will actually be used by the public, instead of primarily the military.
While that is possibly the wet dream of the government, it is highly unlikely. If the Chinese system is set up in the same manner as GPS, it will be a passive system, where the receivers do just that, receive. Broadcasting positions would also require transmission capability, so they would need a cell phone-like transmitter or a satellite phone-type transmitter. Certainly not impossible to do but it would be massively costly, especially with the potential number of users.
OTOH, it doesn't seem so far fetched that the government could require Chinese manufacturers to include a simple transmitter that works on existing cell phone networks. The problem then is handling the massive amount of data.
However, there wasn't all that much light to begin with (overcast, early in the day, in a valley) compounded by the telephoto lens with a relatively narrow aperature means that a P&S likely wouldn't have been able to keep shutter speed high enough to stop the motion. I imagine that the P&S would get the shot just before it hits the water(delay), blurred(shutter speed) and at about half the size-on-frame(lens).
Going back to what NerveGas said though, I've got some great shots from camping at night, where the only light was the fire and I didn't need a flash.
I have my own Perl/MySQL solution for generating the list and creating the symlinks. My shuffling algorithm is very good, plays songs that I've rated higher more often, spread out evenly through the list, never puts the same genre back-to-back, generates in parallel a special playlist consisting only of tracks with no lyrics (for when I want background music that won't distract me), et cetera.
sounds like 90% of the idea media player right there
Definitely not surprised that the GPS reciever is proprietary, but having the API open is a start. I wonder if you can get at anything but NMEA data? Just finishing up a Geomatics Engineering degree, so this could be interesting for me.
--
Teenage Mutant Ningeo Turtles. Trust me, its funny.
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but there is something about a DSLR that will trump a point and shoot any day... There are pictures you just can't get with a PAS. I recently took a shot of a pelican case flying through the air above some class 3 rapids, and you can read the writing on the case... It was taken at 75m away. I challenge anyone to take that photo with any point and shoot.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither could Jesus.
Definitely illegal in many jurisdictions. You must have the appropriate license to broadcast in any part of the spectrum. In some cases, licenses are transferable from the manufacturer of a device, to the user (Family Radio Service and WiFi for example), but the license must be bought/acquired somewhere in the chain. Given the potential for interference with military uses, I'd be very surprised to hear that anyone has managed to get a legitimate license to do that.
I suspect the data available there shares at least some common ancestry with the stuff used in the weapons systems you refer to. Fortunately for us, they recognize it also has value for academia and industry.
OMG WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!?
Methane is a red herring... Global warming is being caused directly by all the hot air
GPS satellites are not geostationary, they orbit at a height of about 20,000km and a velocity of about 7km/s, so from our perspective they always move. Some of the assisted GPS systems have geostationary satellites that broadcast corrections for GPS though, and the Chinese GNSS system (I forget the name) will have geostationary satellites too.
Haha, not exactly though, the Russians put up / are putting up GLONASS which is similar in many ways to GPS. It is still a passive system, active systems are too complicated (costly) to implement when your transmitter and receiver are 20,000km apart, and when you want to service many users.
Sorry to be another "The military wouldn't be interested" poster, but as many others have stated, they wouldn't likely be first in line. There are systems similar to this that drop beacons to the seabed with "known" positions (the boat drops one and records its position based on the usually GPS determined position of the boat). The problem is that its difficult to survey those beacons accurately. On the other hand, as long as the position of these buoys are stable enough that the GPS receiver is able to maintain lock, the buoy becomes a semi-mobile base station that can be used to position other things underwater.
Honestly the first ones in line for a system like this would probably be oil companies putting in offshore rigs, assuming that this system is able to provide similar accuracy to the systems already in use. Few other applications that I am aware of have the budget and need for that kind of precise positioning.
Geist for Prez.... err, i mean prime minister.
Forgive my ignorant musings, but I wonder if using the same type of technology used to accelerate the projectile could be used to levitate it above the rails (mag-lev ??) thereby eliminating wear (other than catastrophic failure). Any comments on this from someone more knowledgeable?
It's not perfect, and you might want to check closely if you're looking for something made in Canada, but it is a very good starting point.
In Canada at least, the biggest reason is insulation. It is easy to insulate a wooden frame house effectively, while it is relatively hard to insulate a brick and mortar house. I have heard of aerated concrete having some ridiculously high insulation ratings, but I think this is a little cost prohibitive to the general population. The aerated concrete doesn't have the strength to be structural, so it needs some kind of frame (2x6 lumber, usually) to support it anyways. I'm no expert, corrections are welcome.
I don't know about the 24" monitor comment, but directX 10 capability puts this high up on my wish list... mostly because of Crysis. http://www.crysis-game.com/ You'll probably have more luck with Google though, not much of a page. Take a look at the movies though, they can be found, just make sure you see it at high res.
See my posts above, but essentially... yes, it is possible to get a better position. The methods are different from what you have described however. If the same receiver can receive signals from all of the systems, there are more satellites available giving you the potential for better geometry. Another big factor is the addition of a third frequency, which carries another civilian-accessible code, this signal will allow the effect of the ionosphere to be removed from the range measurements, meaning that your position accuracy will increase.
Receivers that can use both GPS and GLONASS signals already exist, but they do not treat the two systems as separate, they use all the available information from both together to generate the best possible solution. The catch? Price. A receiver capable of GPS and GLONASS measurements will undoubtedly also be capable of carrier-phase measurements and receiving both L1 and L2. This type of receiver will have a geodetic type antenna (not the kind you can carry in your pocket), and probably cost on the order of $10,000-$30,000. These are widely used in land surveying, you are unlikely to find someone who owns one without using it to make a living.
For info on these high-end receivers, see http://trimble.com/, http://leica.com/, http://novatel.com/, or http://professional.magellangps.com/en/
The Europeans have the advantage of learning from the mistakes made by the Air Force, as well as newer technology. GALILEO is a win-win for users, because it is causing the acceleration of the GPS program, GPS-III should be operational years ahead of schedule (and many augmentations originally slated for block III are now in IIF - launch starts 2007). When combined GALILEO/GPS recievers are released to market, the accuracy commonly available to civilians will increase because of the added frequencies and potentially better geometry. Another potential benefit could be a dramatically reduced barrier to entry in the GPS/GNSS reciever manufacturing and design industry. The current players are working hard now to keep their dominance when the new systems are operational.
As for the Chinese, I don't think they will 'struggle' all that much, but I guess time will tell. The fact that they will have a free to use segment just means that the system will actually be used by the public, instead of primarily the military.
While that is possibly the wet dream of the government, it is highly unlikely. If the Chinese system is set up in the same manner as GPS, it will be a passive system, where the receivers do just that, receive. Broadcasting positions would also require transmission capability, so they would need a cell phone-like transmitter or a satellite phone-type transmitter. Certainly not impossible to do but it would be massively costly, especially with the potential number of users.
OTOH, it doesn't seem so far fetched that the government could require Chinese manufacturers to include a simple transmitter that works on existing cell phone networks. The problem then is handling the massive amount of data.
I stand corrected.
However, there wasn't all that much light to begin with (overcast, early in the day, in a valley) compounded by the telephoto lens with a relatively narrow aperature means that a P&S likely wouldn't have been able to keep shutter speed high enough to stop the motion. I imagine that the P&S would get the shot just before it hits the water(delay), blurred(shutter speed) and at about half the size-on-frame(lens).
Going back to what NerveGas said though, I've got some great shots from camping at night, where the only light was the fire and I didn't need a flash.
sounds like 90% of the idea media player right there
Definitely not surprised that the GPS reciever is proprietary, but having the API open is a start. I wonder if you can get at anything but NMEA data? Just finishing up a Geomatics Engineering degree, so this could be interesting for me.
--
Teenage Mutant Ningeo Turtles. Trust me, its funny.
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but there is something about a DSLR that will trump a point and shoot any day... There are pictures you just can't get with a PAS. I recently took a shot of a pelican case flying through the air above some class 3 rapids, and you can read the writing on the case... It was taken at 75m away. I challenge anyone to take that photo with any point and shoot.